Alfred Perlstein wrote:
> > But if system calls aren't preempted under what circumstances can a
> > process hold a vnode lock and then be usurped for processor?
>
> While sleeping for IO.
Ideal systems release and reacquire locks when they are going
to suspend for a long time (Djikstra's "Banker
Andrew wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Mar 2002, Terry Lambert wrote:
> > > Sure it can, if the idprio process has locked a vnode trying to update
>
> But if system calls aren't preempted under what circumstances can a
> process hold a vnode lock and then be usurped for processor?
I didn't say that.
But y
Michael Lucas wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> Forcibly unmounting a file system that is in use will panic your
> system. It's not exactly a bug, it's just how it works. :)
>
I don't agree. I know this is a little "foolproof" programming
but I should return something like busy FS
To Unsubscribe: send
i am being directed to this list for assistance.
the problem is an Olympus camera as follows:
(please Cc off list - i am not subscribed)
>NO it is no in this line! Maybe its the same like the C-1, but the name
>of it is D-150. So it gets detected by the next line of this file:
>
>
On Tue, 26 Mar 2002, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
> While sleeping for IO.
Oh yeah...rather obvious now you mention it :-)
Thanks,
Andrew
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
* Andrew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [020326 14:27] wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, 26 Mar 2002, Terry Lambert wrote:
>
> > > Sure it can, if the idprio process has locked a vnode trying to update
>
> But if system calls aren't preempted under what circumstances can a
> process hold a vnode lock and then be usur
In the last episode (Mar 27), Andrew said:
>
> On Tue, 26 Mar 2002, Terry Lambert wrote:
>
> > > Sure it can, if the idprio process has locked a vnode trying to update
Careful; I wrote the above line, not Terry.
> But if system calls aren't preempted under what circumstances can a
> process h
On Tue, 26 Mar 2002, Terry Lambert wrote:
> > Sure it can, if the idprio process has locked a vnode trying to update
But if system calls aren't preempted under what circumstances can a
process hold a vnode lock and then be usurped for processor?
Andrew
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PR
Try looking in /usr/local/share/doc/apache for your web tree
/usr/local/www/data used to be linked to this directory, it seems that now
it is not.
Chances are all your stuff is there, all you have to do is either move it to
the newly created data directory or re-create the link to point to it's
c
> Dan Nelson wrote:
>> In the last episode (Mar 26), Andrew said:
>>> On Tue, 26 Mar 2002, Volker Stolz wrote:
Under FreeBSD system calls are currently never preempted, therefore
non- realtime processes can starve realtime processes, or idletime
processes can starve normal priority
Dan Nelson wrote:
> In the last episode (Mar 26), Andrew said:
> > On Tue, 26 Mar 2002, Volker Stolz wrote:
> > > Under FreeBSD system calls are currently never preempted, therefore
> > > non- realtime processes can starve realtime processes, or idletime
> > > processes can starve normal priority
Michael Lucas wrote:
> Forcibly unmounting a file system that is in use will panic your
> system. It's not exactly a bug, it's just how it works. :)
"Forcibly trapping a butterfly with the provided butterfly net
will destroy civilization. It's not exactly a bug, it's just
how it works."
Sh
Vadim Kolontsov wrote:
>
> Good morning,
>
> So UNIONFS is broken in 4.5? Is it fixed in -STABLE? In -CURRENT?
There are two types of "union"; one is intrinsic, and one is
a seperate FS type.
There are also uncommitted patches that have been sitting around
for a while now.
-- Terry
To Unsu
>
> Also, I want to get the information about the load,
> and also process information.
>
you may get the load averages through getloadavg(3) or through
kvm_getloadavg(3). process information may be retrieved through
kvm_getprocs(3).
Good luck,
-Anthony.
--
Andrew wrote:
>> Under FreeBSD system calls are currently never preempted, therefore
>> non- realtime processes can starve realtime processes, or idletime
>> processes can starve normal priority processes.
>
> Even so an idprio process can't be worse than a normal process.
Practically this m
No apologies neccessary :-). You may be right with respect to FreeBSD.
In his BSD class Kirk describes a forcible unmount as a perfectly legitimate
thing to do (albeit a bit traumatic for the users). It may just be a regression
that crept in and, seeing as it is something that people seldom want
In the last episode (Mar 26), Andrew said:
> On Tue, 26 Mar 2002, Volker Stolz wrote:
> > Under FreeBSD system calls are currently never preempted, therefore
> > non- realtime processes can starve realtime processes, or idletime
> > processes can starve normal priority processes.
>
> Even so an i
OK. That's not what I was told but back in 96 or so,but I suppose the
code is allowed to change. My apologies. :-)
Could you please prepare a dump of this? See the developers' handbook
for details, or follow the pointers from the FAQ. Thanks!
On Tue, Mar 26, 2002 at 07:20:37AM -0800, Kip Mac
That is a bug. The system is supposed to iterate through all the vnodes hanging
off the mount point and vgone them. According to Kirk at least this used to
work.
-Kip
On Tue, 26 Mar 2002, Michael Lucas wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Forcibly unmounting a file system that is in us
Hello to those of you I haven't talked in a while, and last
two years conference attendees. (Sorry if you get two copies of
this, it means you've either got two ids in my addressbook or
my perl hash script-foo is not leet enough. :-)
This is a quick note to remind you that the deadline for reduc
Hello,
Forcibly unmounting a file system that is in use will panic your
system. It's not exactly a bug, it's just how it works. :)
On Tue, Mar 26, 2002 at 10:24:01AM +0200, Apache Man wrote:
> Hi.
>
> As i informed you earler the bug exists in freebsd 4.5.
> Kernel panics with `vm_ob
On Tue, 26 Mar 2002, Volker Stolz wrote:
> Under FreeBSD system calls are currently never preempted, therefore non-
> realtime processes can starve realtime processes, or idletime processes
> can starve normal priority processes.
Even so an idprio process can't be worse than a normal
On Tue, Mar 26, 2002 at 01:16:45PM +0300, Vadim Kolontsov wrote:
> > I dont believe union should be used anywhere. Its broken, its
> > always been broken (withinn the context of FreeBSD).
> > As far as I know that hasn't changed recently. Read `man mount_union`.
>
> Surely I read it. But what's
In local.freebsd-hackers, you wrote:
> Speaking of idprio... I liked the good old days (3.x) when you didn't have
> to be root to use the command. Given that idprio can be used to raise
> priorities as well as lower them, I can see the point of having some
> restrictions, but shouldn't it be poss
> I dont believe union should be used anywhere. Its broken, its
> always been broken (withinn the context of FreeBSD).
> As far as I know that hasn't changed recently. Read `man mount_union`.
Surely I read it. But what's about PR docs/30253 and kern/27250?
Best regards,
Vadim.
To Unsubscribe
On Tue, Mar 26, 2002 at 12:04:57PM +0300, Vadim Kolontsov wrote:
> Good morning,
>
> So UNIONFS is broken in 4.5? Is it fixed in -STABLE? In -CURRENT?
I dont believe union should be used anywhere. Its broken, its always
been broken (withinn the context of FreeBSD). As far as I know that
hasn't
Good morning,
So UNIONFS is broken in 4.5? Is it fixed in -STABLE? In -CURRENT?
Best regards,
Vadim.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Victor Polyakov wrote:
> Unfortunately, NULLFS filesystem does not permit users to modify files.
> We want do give each user a copy of /usr and to permit installation of
> software etc...
You mean "on a per user basis". It permits modification.
In general, you would mount / and /usr read-on
Hi.
As i informed you earler the bug exists in freebsd 4.5.
Kernel panics with `vm_object_reference: delay in getting object'
when i copy files from a partition and at the same time dismount
this partition (umount -f /cdrom).
The sutuation is following.
I mount /cdrom. Then start too man
29 matches
Mail list logo
