Regarding procfs in freeBSd

o get this pi_root from pfs_info structure ? Is there any global variable which points to /proc' pfs_node .? That is .. I want to create my own proc entry under /proc . How to do that ? -- Regards, N Ravi ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing

SIGSTOP and SIGKILL

cleared from the siglist because it is in the middle of taking the signal. Alternatively if the signal being taken is SIGKILL the kernel needs to avoid saying "I'll stop the process now because I've been asked to". Any good solutions to this problem? Thanks Ravi Murty __

Re: SIGSTOP and SIGKILL

I haven't, are there specific improvements in this area of the kernel? On Mar 13, 2011, at 10:30 PM, Erich Dollansky wrote: > Hi, > > On Monday 14 March 2011 11:41:21 Ravi Murty wrote: > >> >> Any good solutions to this problem? > > did you

Re: SIGSTOP and SIGKILL

bring the threads back out of stopped state without any problems. Ravi On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 2:03 AM, Kostik Belousov wrote: > On Sun, Mar 13, 2011 at 11:30:00PM -0700, Ravi Murty wrote: > > I haven't, are there specific improvements in this area of the kernel? > First, the 8.

md_spinlock_count?

an come up with is the fact that a non-zero spinlock_count prevents interrupts from getting disabled/renabled to some unknown value? Thanks Ravi Murty ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/fre

md_spinlock_count?

an come up with is the fact that a non-zero spinlock_count prevents interrupts from getting disabled/renabled to some unknown value? Thanks Ravi Murty ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/fre

thread and ksegrp priorities

he ksegrp change? It appears that these things change when a thread returns to user mode (returns to normal user priority), when returning from a sleep (priority boost) etc. Thanks Ravi ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lis

Do you really "sleep" when blocked on a mutex?

hich eventually calls setrunqueue()? Why doesn't setrunqueue have to worry about the possibility that the process may have been swapped out while it was waiting to become runnable? Thanks Ravi ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http

RE: Do you really "sleep" when blocked on a mutex?

for a lock (I'm wondering if this is related to how long they block before becoming runnable which might cause a swapout in one case and no swapout in the other case?) Ravi -Original Message- From: Julian Elischer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, April 21, 2008 12:54 PM To:

RE: Do you really "sleep" when blocked on a mutex?

ess/thread running on a CPU be swapped out, do they suspend the threads before they pull out memory from underneath them? Thanks Ravi -Original Message- From: Julian Elischer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, April 21, 2008 1:33 PM To: Murty, Ravi Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subje

Did the notion of ksegrp's go away in 7.x?

Hello, I was browsing through the 7.x code and in particular looking at kern/kern_switch.c and find ksegrp completely missing (I was looking for setrunqueue). Is the notion of process_scope vs system_scope out in 7.x? Thanks Ravi ___ freebsd

maybe_preempt_in_ksegrp

to run the new thread. This makes sense. 2. Why do we check the state of the kse and make sure it is KES_THREAD. I would imagine that when this function is called, the state is exactly KES_THREAD? What am I missing here? Thanks Ravi Murty ___

RE: maybe_preempt_in_ksegrp

ay "run me" since we just established that I am higher priority than what's running on the CPU. Ravi -Original Message- From: Julian Elischer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2008 2:27 PM To: Murty, Ravi Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ma

RE: maybe_preempt_in_ksegrp

PE) I don't see this call (maybe_preempt_in_ksegrp) ever getting called :). Thanks ravi -Original Message- From: Julian Elischer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2008 3:52 PM To: Murty, Ravi Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: maybe_preempt_in_ksegrp M

SW_PREEMPT and cpu runq

thread goes back some place else. If a thread is being kicked out and there is a perfectly idle CPU some where on the system, wouldn't it make sense to migrate the thread? Thanks Ravi ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list

RE: SW_PREEMPT and cpu runq

, yes this is 6.2 Thanks much, Ravi -Original Message- From: Julian Elischer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, May 08, 2008 3:28 PM To: Murty, Ravi Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: SW_PREEMPT and cpu runq Murty, Ravi wrote: > Hi, > > > > When a thre

RE: SW_PREEMPT and cpu runq

Oh, I find this happens only in ULE -- during sched_switch(), it sets KEF_HOLD and then calls setrunqueue(). This ensures that the thread does not migrate on preemptions. Ravi -Original Message- From: Murty, Ravi Sent: Thursday, May 08, 2008 3:48 PM To: 'Julian Elischer' C

TD_ON_RUNQ()

- and I've seen this assert happen. Thanks Ravi ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

calcru question

d all of this happens with sched_lock held which calcru also grabs. Thanks, Ravi ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Bug in calcru in he 6.2 and 6.3 kernels

acceptable (i.e. it is okay to be running and oncpu is NOCPU). Thanks Ravi ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

atomic_load_acq_int in ipi_nmi_handler()

ependency here. Also, since FreeBSD has masks (like ipi_nmi_pending), has there been any work on extending this beyond 64 CPUs? Thanks Ravi ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-h

RE: Bug in calcru in he 6.2 and 6.3 kernels

might be going on in 6.2 before I spend the time to migrate to 7.0. Thanks Ravi -Original Message- From: Kris Kennaway [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, July 07, 2008 2:04 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Murty, Ravi; freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Bug in calcru in he 6.

RE: Bug in calcru in he 6.2 and 6.3 kernels

before I spent weeks porting my changes to the scheduler (also I can justify the move to 7.x). I can't figure out why my 8 app threads run so slow -- I am booting the kernel is single user mode with not much else running and my threads do a lot of work and don't really sleep. T

priority fields in a thread

Hello, I was wondering what all these different priority related fields in a thread structure meant. This is the 8.0 kernel tree. Thanks Ravi Td_base_pri Td_user_pri Td_base_user_pri Td_priority ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing

Sched_ule.c - 8.0

the thread isn't running. In such a case we would probably end up running on the wrong CPU for a while before realizing that we aren't allowed to do so. Thanks Ravi ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/ma

sched_thread_priority in ULE 8.0

f the thread is running and we've boosted the thread's priority, then simply changing tdq_lowpri should do it right? I've included part of the sched_thread_priority code below. Thanks Ravi The code is as follows: ... If (prio < tdq->tdq_lowpri) tdq->tdq_lowpri else

Typo in ULE in FreeBSD 8.0 -- that's not really a bug

ed to send an expensive IPI. However, why would td (parameter) ever be the IDLE thread? It almost seems like this check will always fail and we end up sending a hard IPI to the target CPU which works, but may not be needed. May be we wanted to use PCPU->curthread instead of td?

RE: Typo in ULE in FreeBSD 8.0 -- that's not really a bug

Yes, that's what I was thinking. Just look at what's running on the remote CPU. Thanks Jeff and John. Ravi -Original Message- From: John Baldwin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2008 8:38 AM To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Cc: Murty, Ravi; [EMAIL

option pci

y compile the kernel with option pci turned off? Thanks Ravi ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

local APIC 2 interrupt fifo limit

was wondering why we need smp_ipi_mtx besides the fact that the kernel uses global variables for things like invalidate page ranges. Thanks, Ravi ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To

td_critnest

a lock and then decrements it back to zero. I can't figure out why it does this. The freebsd 5 implementation seems straightforward where we check if the thread owes a preempt and if so we switch to the new thread. Can anyone help me with this? Thanks

Regarding enabling IOAPIC on Intel Dual core processor based boards having Broadcom controller

ht on this IRQ mapping when IOAPIC is enabled and possible fix ( Software or BIOS?) Thanks, Ravi -- Thanks, Ravi "The most influential person who will talk to you all day is you, so you should be very careful about what you say to you!" ___

Regarding enabling IOAPIC on Intel Dual core processor based boards having Broadcom controller

throw some light on this IRQ mapping when IOAPIC is enabled and possible fix ( Software or BIOS?) NOTE: Other devices ( Intel controller (em driver)) are working fine only this BCM5703 is having issues with IOAPIC Thanks, Ravi ___ freebsd-hackers@f

Re: What's the state of AF-4Kn support?

-Original Message- From: Jia-Shiun Li Date: Sunday, September 22, 2013 11:22 PM To: Ravi Pokala Cc: "freebsd-hardw...@freebsd.org" , Subject: Re: What's the state of AF-4Kn support? >On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 10:49 PM, Ravi Pokala wrote: >> >>... >

Re: What's the state of AF-4Kn support?

-Original Message- From: Reply-To: Date: Monday, September 23, 2013 1:13 AM To: 'Jia-Shiun Li' , Ravi Pokala Cc: , Subject: RE: What's the state of AF-4Kn support? ># install >gpart create -s GPT ada1 >gpart show >gpart add -i 1 -t freebsd-boot -b 40 -s

Re: What's the state of AF-4Kn support?

Monday, September 23, 2013 10:58:19 am Ravi Pokala wrote: -Original Message- From: Jia-Shiun Li Date: Sunday, September 22, 2013 11:22 PM To: Ravi Pokala Cc: "freebsd-hardw...@freebsd.org" , Subject: Re: What's the state of AF-4Kn support? On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 10:49 PM

FreeBSD system call implementation

S_SCE, narg); PTRACESTOP_SC(p, td, S_PT_SCE); error = (*callp->sy_call)(td, args); } My question is why we store the p->p_sysent->sv_table for each process. What is the reason for keeping this per process? Are there some situations where two process

using segmentation to manage memory in FreeBSD

be able to use the TLB cache entries for its segment. This becomes more attractive for 64 bit systems. My question is that is this functionality available on FreeBSD in any way? Ravi ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org

QLogic ISP 2322 driver

am running Intel Xeon 2.4GHz machine (HT enabled) with 1GB of RAM Thanks and Regards, Ravi ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"