Re: [RFC][CFT] GEOM direct dispatch and fine-grained CAM locking

2013-10-07 Thread John Baldwin
On Sunday, October 06, 2013 3:30:42 am Alexander Motin wrote: > On 02.10.2013 20:30, John Baldwin wrote: > > On Saturday, September 07, 2013 2:32:45 am Alexander Motin wrote: > >> On 07.09.2013 02:02, Jeremie Le Hen wrote: > >>> On Fri, Sep 06, 2013 at 11:29:11AM +0300, Alexander Motin wrote: > >>>

Re: UFS related panic (daily <-> find)

2013-10-07 Thread John Baldwin
On Wednesday, October 02, 2013 5:40:02 pm rank1see...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > > Ok, here is another one, same case, just this time under > 9.1-RELEASE-p7 > > > > > > > > > > == > > > > > Fatal trap 12: page fault while in kernel mode > > > > > fault vi

Re: [RFC][CFT] GEOM direct dispatch and fine-grained CAM locking

2013-10-07 Thread Alexander Motin
On 07.10.2013 19:09, John Baldwin wrote: On Sunday, October 06, 2013 3:30:42 am Alexander Motin wrote: On 02.10.2013 20:30, John Baldwin wrote: On Saturday, September 07, 2013 2:32:45 am Alexander Motin wrote: On 07.09.2013 02:02, Jeremie Le Hen wrote: On Fri, Sep 06, 2013 at 11:29:11AM +0300

Re: Call fo comments - raising vfs.ufs.dirhash_reclaimage?

2013-10-07 Thread Davide Italiano
On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 3:56 PM, Ivan Voras wrote: > Hi, > > Prodded by davide@, I'd like to collect opinions about raising the > vfs.ufs.dirhash_reclaimage sysctl from 5 to 60, committed at: > > http://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/254986 > > What it does: > > Used in lowmem handler at > http

Re: Call fo comments - raising vfs.ufs.dirhash_reclaimage?

2013-10-07 Thread Davide Italiano
> What would perhaps be better than a hardcoded reclaim age would be to use > an LRU-type approach and perhaps set a target percent to reclaim. That is, > suppose you were to reclaim the oldest 10% of hashes on each lowmem call > (and make the '10%' the tunable value). Then you will always make s

Re: UFS related panic (daily <-> find)

2013-10-07 Thread rank1seeker
> On Wednesday, October 02, 2013 5:40:02 pm rank1see...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > > > Ok, here is another one, same case, just this time under > > 9.1-RELEASE-p7 > > > > > > > > > > > > == > > > > > > Fatal trap 12: page fault while in kernel mode > > >

geli still broken on latest 9.* from svn

2013-10-07 Thread Wojciech Puchar
is it planned to fix or should i just treat some non latest 9.* release as the last non-broken one, and just apply security fixes manually? ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubsc

patch(1) depends on RCS - should it?

2013-10-07 Thread Eitan Adler
patch(1) explicitly tries to use RCS (and SCCS) in certain cases. Are we okay with a base system utility that behaves differently depending on whether a port is installed? Should the relevant code be removed from patch(1)? See head/usr.bin/patch/inp.c lines 166 to 240 for details. -- Eitan Adle

Re: patch(1) depends on RCS - should it?

2013-10-07 Thread Poul-Henning Kamp
In message , Eitan Adler writes: >patch(1) explicitly tries to use RCS (and SCCS) in certain cases. Are >we okay with a base system utility that behaves differently depending >on whether a port is installed? Should the relevant code be removed >from patch(1)? > >See head/usr.bin/patch/inp.c line

Re: Call fo comments - raising vfs.ufs.dirhash_reclaimage?

2013-10-07 Thread Peter Holm
On Mon, Oct 07, 2013 at 07:34:24PM +0200, Davide Italiano wrote: > > What would perhaps be better than a hardcoded reclaim age would be to use > > an LRU-type approach and perhaps set a target percent to reclaim. That is, > > suppose you were to reclaim the oldest 10% of hashes on each lowmem call