https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95277
--- Comment #12 from Andrey V. Elsukov ---
I think this PR is no longer relevant after https://reviews.freebsd.org/D15617
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
On Tue, Oct 01, 2024 at 12:46:07PM +, Franco Fichtner wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > On 1. Oct 2024, at 02:47, Zhenlei Huang wrote:
> >
> > The test plan is simple, either of the following should suffice:
> >
> > • Do traffic sniffing on axgbe interface. The interface will enter promisc
> > mode and s
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95277
Mark Linimon changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|patch |
Summary|[netinet] [patch
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=171228
Mark Linimon changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|patch |
Assignee|b...@freebsd.or
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=281560
--- Comment #18 from shail...@google.com ---
(In reply to Konstantin Belousov from comment #14)
Although I do not have access to the VMs to do `show pcpu`, I checked my notes
to find this `ps` entry:
100438 Run CPU 11
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=281560
--- Comment #19 from Konstantin Belousov ---
(In reply to shailend from comment #18)
Locks (except spinlocks) do not have any magic properties WRT disabling
scheduling. So it is absolutely fine for a thread owning a lock to be
put off CPU
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=237973
Mark Linimon changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|mfc-stable12?, |
|mfc-stable11?
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=240944
Mark Linimon changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|mfc-stable12?, |
|mfc-stable11?
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=256393
Mark Linimon changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|rgri...@freebsd.org |
Flags|mfc-stable13?,
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=238324
Mark Linimon changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|mfc-stable12?, |
|mfc-stable11?
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=237072
Mark Linimon changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|mfc-stable12?, |
|mfc-stable11?
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=281560
--- Comment #20 from shail...@google.com ---
(In reply to Konstantin Belousov from comment #19)
Thanks for the explanation. The iperf thread owning the lock and the driver
thread looping on the cpu both have priority 4. The driver thread wa
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=202510
Mark Linimon changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|mfc-stable11?, |
|mfc-stable10?,
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196944
Mark Linimon changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|mfc-stable10?, mfc-stable9? |
--- Comment #13 from Mark Linimon
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=204438
Mark Linimon changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|mfc-stable10?, mfc-stable9? |
Keywords|patch
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=206528
Mark Linimon changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|mfc-stable10? |
CC|
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=207261
Mark Linimon changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|maintainer-feedback?(vmaffi |
|o...@freebsd.or
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=281560
--- Comment #21 from Konstantin Belousov ---
(In reply to shailend from comment #20)
Then, this is especially looks like a live-lock.
User thread should not have the priority 4, it is in the range of priorities of
the interrupt threads. S
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=256579
Mark Linimon changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|mfc-stable13?, |
|mfc-stable12?,
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193452
Mark Linimon changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|sbr...@freebsd.org |bugmeis...@freebsd.org
20 matches
Mail list logo