On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 05:34:03PM -0800, Xin Li wrote:
> Did you benchmarked the change? Changes like this has to be done very
> carefully since it's possible that the extra time spent on addition
> and subtractions, when multiple by the length of the "long" string,
> may actually defeat the bene
2012/2/24, Eugene Grosbein :
> 28.01.2012 20:22, Attilio Rao пишет:
>
>> 2012/1/28 Ryan Stone :
>>> On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 10:41 PM, Attilio Rao
>>> wrote:
I think what you found out is very sensitive.
However, the patch is not correct as you cannot call
cpuset_setthread() with thr
24.02.2012 18:45, Attilio Rao пишет:
>> I have the pathological test-case for it:
>> http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=165444
>>
>
> A fix has been committed as r230984, it should apply to STABLE_9/8
> too, can you try it?
>
> Attilio
>
>
I will try but I already run my patch for net
2012/2/24, Eugene Grosbein :
> 24.02.2012 18:45, Attilio Rao пишет:
>
>>> I have the pathological test-case for it:
>>> http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=165444
>>>
>>
>> A fix has been committed as r230984, it should apply to STABLE_9/8
>> too, can you try it?
>>
>> Attilio
>>
>>
>
> I wi
28.01.2012 20:22, Attilio Rao пишет:
> 2012/1/28 Ryan Stone :
>> On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 10:41 PM, Attilio Rao wrote:
>>> I think what you found out is very sensitive.
>>> However, the patch is not correct as you cannot call
>>> cpuset_setthread() with thread_lock held.
>>
>> Whoops! I actually
24.02.2012 19:05, Attilio Rao пишет:
> 2012/2/24, Eugene Grosbein :
>> 24.02.2012 18:45, Attilio Rao пишет:
>>
I have the pathological test-case for it:
http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=165444
>>>
>>> A fix has been committed as r230984, it should apply to STABLE_9/8
>>> to
- Original Message -
From: John Baldwin
To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
Cc: rank1see...@gmail.com, Roman Divacky
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2012 08:02:04 -0500
Subject: Re: BUG: 9.0 stage 2 boot (/boot/boot)
> On Friday, February 17, 2012 2:43:55 am rank1see...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Anyway, after
This is mostly idle wanderings than anything useful, but I've just
redirected an application which creates a lot of temporary data to a
tmpfs mount point and I'm happily observing disk bandwidth dwindling
from a sustained many dozens of MB/s to merely hundreds of KB/s, which
is the value the system
On Friday, February 24, 2012 9:05:54 am rank1see...@gmail.com wrote:
> - Original Message -
> From: John Baldwin
> To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
> Cc: rank1see...@gmail.com, Roman Divacky
> Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2012 08:02:04 -0500
> Subject: Re: BUG: 9.0 stage 2 boot (/boot/boot)
>
> > On
I can't help you with PCI bandwidth usage(and personally I'd be very
interested in being able to measure that), but I do know that
Nehalem-based Intel Core i7s (and presumably more recent Intel CPUs)
export PMCs for measuring memory bandwidth utilization. The PMCs for
the Core i7 are:
QMC_BUSY.WR
- Original Message -
From: John Baldwin
To: rank1see...@gmail.com
Cc: hack...@freebsd.org, "Roman Divacky"
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2012 12:23:45 -0500
Subject: Re: BUG: 9.0 stage 2 boot (/boot/boot)
> On Friday, February 24, 2012 9:05:54 am rank1see...@gmail.com wrote:
> > - Original Messa
On Friday, February 24, 2012 2:11:52 pm rank1see...@gmail.com wrote:
> - Original Message -
> From: John Baldwin
> To: rank1see...@gmail.com
> Cc: hack...@freebsd.org, "Roman Divacky"
> Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2012 12:23:45 -0500
> Subject: Re: BUG: 9.0 stage 2 boot (/boot/boot)
>
> > On Frida
>> The problem then is how to feed both machines the same inputs, and
>> compare the outputs. Do we need a third machine to supervise?
>> Can we have each machine keep an eye on the other, avoiding the
>> need for a third machine?
>
> A pair would work as long as the only failures are "obvious" (e.
Near the end of vm_pageout_page_stats() there is the following code:
if (m->act_count == 0) {
/*
* We turn off page access, so that we have
* more accurate RSS stats. We don't do this
* in the normal page deactivation when the
* system is loaded VM wise
On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 3:10 PM, Dieter BSD wrote:
> Depends on what sort of work the machine is doing. If the job is
> something that can be done again, you could simply try again, if
> you still get different answers try a third machine or wade in and
> start manually inspecting things until y
Hello everybody,
I originally posted this at freebsd-questions and was referred over here.
I recently got a HP t5700 thin client that I wanted to turn into a
firewall using pfSense. For reference, this system uses a Transmeta Crusoe
TM5800 CPU with a VIA chipset that I'm having difficulty identif
16 matches
Mail list logo
