Re: ichsmb - correct locking strategy?

2011-02-21 Thread Svatopluk Kraus
On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 4:09 PM, Hans Petter Selasky wrote: > On Friday 18 February 2011 15:10:47 Svatopluk Kraus wrote: >> Hi, >> >>   I try to figure out locking strategy in FreeBSD and found 'ichsmb' >> device. There is a mutex which protects smb bus (ichsmb device). For >> example in ichsmb_re

Re: machdep.hlt_cpus not safe with ULE?

2011-02-21 Thread Andriy Gapon
on 19/02/2011 14:36 Steven Hartland said the following: > I'm trying to debug a possibly failing CPU, so I thought it would > be easy just disable the cores using machdep.hlt_cpus and see if > we see the panic's we've been seeing. > > The problem is it seems ULE doesnt properly support machdep.hlt

Re: Can vm_mmap()/vm_map_remove() be called with giant held? (linuxolator dvb patches)

2011-02-21 Thread Juergen Lock
On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 07:57:44PM +0200, Kostik Belousov wrote: > On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 09:55:42PM +0100, Juergen Lock wrote: > > I have finally got back to this and did the style and vm_map_remove() > > return value handling fixes, updated the patches in-place: > > > > http://people.freebs

FreeBSD ABI?

2011-02-21 Thread Yuri
Where is it documented? Are there differences with the linux ABI? Particularly I am interested in stack alignment requirement. For example i386 Solaris, Linux and MacOS have 16 bit stack alignment for procedure calls. This is reflected in LLVM sources: if (isTargetDarwin() || isTargetLinux(

Re: machdep.hlt_cpus not safe with ULE?

2011-02-21 Thread Garrett Cooper
On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 8:29 AM, Andriy Gapon wrote: > on 19/02/2011 14:36 Steven Hartland said the following: >> I'm trying to debug a possibly failing CPU, so I thought it would >> be easy just disable the cores using machdep.hlt_cpus and see if >> we see the panic's we've been seeing. >> >> The

Re: machdep.hlt_cpus not safe with ULE?

2011-02-21 Thread Steven Hartland
- Original Message - From: "Garrett Cooper" As a followup to this and based on discussions with other folks, the fact that it's using hlt to halt CPUs without rescheduling tasks / masking interrupts, etc is not good. So none of the *hlt* sysctls are really doing the right thing on x86

Re: FreeBSD ABI?

2011-02-21 Thread Roman Divacky
On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 10:36:39AM -0800, Yuri wrote: > Where is it documented? > Are there differences with the linux ABI? > > Particularly I am interested in stack alignment requirement. For example > i386 Solaris, Linux and MacOS have 16 bit stack alignment for procedure > calls. This is refl

Re: machdep.hlt_cpus not safe with ULE?

2011-02-21 Thread Garrett Cooper
On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 12:30 PM, Steven Hartland wrote: > - Original Message - From: "Garrett Cooper" >> >>   As a followup to this and based on discussions with other folks, >> the fact that it's using hlt to halt CPUs without rescheduling tasks / >> masking interrupts, etc is not good.

Re: FreeBSD ABI?

2011-02-21 Thread b. f.
> > Where is it documented? > > Are there differences with the linux ABI? > > > > Particularly I am interested in stack alignment requirement. For example > > i386 Solaris, Linux and MacOS have 16 bit stack alignment for procedure > > calls. This is reflected in LLVM sources: > > > > if (isTarget

Re: FreeBSD ABI?

2011-02-21 Thread Yuri
On 02/21/2011 14:47, b. f. wrote: Isn't it supposed to [1] conform to: http://www.sco.com/developers/devspecs/abi386-4.pdf http://www.x86-64.org/documentation/abi.pdf ? [1] See, for example: http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-hackers/2011-January/034045.html http://www.freebsd.org/cgi

Re: FreeBSD ABI?

2011-02-21 Thread Joerg Sonnenberger
On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 03:16:55PM -0800, Yuri wrote: > But I know for the fact that Solaris-i386 uses 16 byte alignment. At > least that's what gcc-4.5.2 thinks when on Solaris. That's a major difference. The Linux people decided a while ago that stack alignment should be 16 Byte. GCC effectively

Re: FreeBSD ABI?

2011-02-21 Thread Yuri
On 02/21/2011 15:38, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote: That's a major difference. The Linux people decided a while ago that stack alignment should be 16 Byte. GCC effectively forces that down everyone's throat because until at least GCC 4.2 or 4.3, it can't correctly realign the stack and just fails mise

Re: FreeBSD ABI?

2011-02-21 Thread Yuri
On 02/21/2011 15:38, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote: That's a major difference. The Linux people decided a while ago that stack alignment should be 16 Byte. GCC effectively forces that down everyone's throat because until at least GCC 4.2 or 4.3, it can't correctly realign the stack and just fails mise

Re: FreeBSD ABI?

2011-02-21 Thread b. f.
>I filed gcc PR asking gcc to revert their behavior back to prescribed by >documentation: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47842 Heh, good luck!: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38496 ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list h

Problem with etc/periodic/daily/310.accounting

2011-02-21 Thread Doug Barton
I was looking over etc/periodic/daily/310.accounting on a system that is very tight on space in /var, and I think that at minimum there is a race, and at best there is a pretty serious inefficiency. Right now after rotating the old logs the script does this: cp -pf acct acct.0 || r

buildkernel error

2011-02-21 Thread gnehzuil
Hi all, I updated my kernel source code and try to make a new kernel using make buildkernel command. But I got an error as follow: :> hack.c cc -shared -nostdlib hack.c -o hack.So rm -f hack.c MAKE=make sh /usr/src/sys/conf/newvers.sh GENERIC cc -c -O -pipe -std=c99 -