speed up port compiling using RAM (tmpfs) ???

2006-01-15 Thread Ashok Shrestha
Hi, I am curious to know if there is a way to compile a port such as X11 or KDE faster. I know in Gentoo, you can mount a part of RAM and compile in that. This substantially decreases the compile time. Reference: http://gentoo-wiki.com/TIP_Speeding_up_portage_with_tmpfs Does anyone know how to

Taking a process of the runqueue.

2006-01-15 Thread Anupam Deshpande
Hello, How can i take a process of the runqueue ? i do not want that process and contained threads to be scheduled for some time.Then i may again put that process in the runqueue. TIA. Regards, Anupam ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing l

Re: speed up port compiling using RAM (tmpfs) ???

2006-01-15 Thread Victor Balada Diaz
On Sun, Jan 15, 2006 at 02:45:30AM -0500, Ashok Shrestha wrote: > Hi, > > I am curious to know if there is a way to compile a port such as X11 > or KDE faster. > > I know in Gentoo, you can mount a part of RAM and compile in that. > This substantially decreases the compile time. Reference: > htt

Re: speed up port compiling using RAM (tmpfs) ???

2006-01-15 Thread Eric Kjeldergaard
日曜日 15 1月 2006 16:45、Ashok Shrestha さんは書きました: > Hi, > > I am curious to know if there is a way to compile a port such as X11 > or KDE faster. > > I know in Gentoo, you can mount a part of RAM and compile in that. > This substantially decreases the compile time. Reference: > http://gentoo-wiki.com/

Re: How priority propagation works on read/write lock?

2006-01-15 Thread Robert Watson
On Sun, 15 Jan 2006, prime wrote: On 1/15/06, Tiffany Snyder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Does FreeBSD support rwlocks? ... FreeBSD supports sx now,see sx(9).sx has the same semanteme as rwlock. While semantically they are very simila, John Baldwin has a work-in-progress implementation of

Re: Taking a process of the runqueue.

2006-01-15 Thread Giorgos Keramidas
On 2006-01-15 15:02, Anupam Deshpande <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hello, > How can i take a process of the runqueue ? i do not want that > process and contained threads to be scheduled for some time.Then i may > again put that process in the runqueue. By sending a STOP signal to it? _

Re: speed up port compiling using RAM (tmpfs) ???

2006-01-15 Thread Niki Denev
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Ashok Shrestha wrote: > Hi, > > I am curious to know if there is a way to compile a port such as X11 > or KDE faster. > > I know in Gentoo, you can mount a part of RAM and compile in that. > This substantially decreases the compile time. Reference:

Re: speed up port compiling using RAM (tmpfs) ???

2006-01-15 Thread chris
you can mount a small memory filesystem think it's called mbfs or something and change the work dir to that then you should be able to compile KDE using ram instead of the HD > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > Ashok Shrestha wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I am curious to know if there is a

Re: How priority propagation works on read/write lock?

2006-01-15 Thread Tiffany Snyder
That's awesome. Thanks for the update. Tiffany. On 1/15/06, Robert Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Sun, 15 Jan 2006, prime wrote: > > > On 1/15/06, Tiffany Snyder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > >> Does FreeBSD support rwlocks? > ... > > FreeBSD supports sx now,see sx(9).sx has the

Panic in nfs_putpages() on 6-stable.

2006-01-15 Thread Frank Mayhar
I've run into this panic a couple of times over the last few days, while trying to rebuild ports using an NFS-mounted /usr/ports filesystem. It happened again today and this time I had time to look at the dump. The problem is a null pointer dereference in nfs_putpages(), when it tries to look at

Re: speed up port compiling using RAM (tmpfs) ???

2006-01-15 Thread Daniel O'Connor
On Sunday 15 January 2006 18:15, Ashok Shrestha wrote: > I am curious to know if there is a way to compile a port such as X11 > or KDE faster. > > I know in Gentoo, you can mount a part of RAM and compile in that. > This substantially decreases the compile time. Reference: > http://gentoo-wiki.com

giving more cpu time to cpu intensive kernel daemon

2006-01-15 Thread kamal kc
dear all, i created a kernel daemon thread using the SYSINIT(). i want that daemon thread to do more cpu intensive tasks and that's why i want to give it more cpu time. my daemon thread get a priority of -84 and a nice value of 0. i guess when the nice value is 0 it affects its scheduling.

Re: Panic in nfs_putpages() on 6-stable, more info.

2006-01-15 Thread Frank Mayhar
A bit more data and another question. On Sun, 2006-01-15 at 12:40 -0800, Frank Mayhar wrote: > In nfs_reclaim(), just before he calls vnode_destroy_vobject(), he > zfrees and clears vp->v_data. When, down in the guts of vm_object.c, he > tries to flush the associated pages, v_data is already NULL

Re: How priority propagation works on read/write lock?

2006-01-15 Thread Kamal R. Prasad
you mean, boosting the priority of a reader would be required to avoid priority inversion, but difficult to implement? regards -kamal On 1/14/06, John Baldwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I think you just kind of punt and do a best effort. Trying to manage a > list > of current read lock holder