On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 7:08 PM, Kenneth D. Merry wrote:
> So I think we need some comment from Eitan on r231814, since that would
> probably need to come out as well. If he is okay with backing out r231814,
> and avg agrees as well, then I will back out all four changes.
If other commits have
On Feb 16, 2012, at 11:45 PM, Julian Elischer wrote:
*snip*
The message buffer does not have to be a chunk of memory that
we circularly scribble to. It can be a per-cpu linked list of
messages even.
*snip*
that is an intersting thought.. though.. how would you sort them into order for
printing
On Fri, 17 Feb 2012, Marcel Moolenaar wrote:
On Feb 17, 2012, at 4:13 AM, Bruce Evans wrote:
On Thu, 16 Feb 2012, Marcel Moolenaar wrote:
I think we should lift above the immediate problem and allow for
single- and multi-line messages that are atomically appended to
the message buffer. Conso
On Feb 17, 2012, at 1:09 AM, Attilio Rao wrote:
>>
>> The message buffer does not have to be a chunk of memory that
>> we circularly scribble to. It can be a per-cpu linked list of
>> messages even.
>
> Do you think we could inherit much of the code from KTR subsystem?
> We could use KTR as a sc
On Feb 17, 2012, at 12:58 AM, Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote:
*snip*
>> I think we should lift above the immediate problem and allow for
>> single- and multi-line messages that are atomically appended to
>> the message buffer. Console output and propagation of messages
>> outside of the kernel should
On Feb 17, 2012, at 4:13 AM, Bruce Evans wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Feb 2012, Marcel Moolenaar wrote:
>
>> I think we should lift above the immediate problem and allow for
>> single- and multi-line messages that are atomically appended to
>> the message buffer. Console output and propagation of message
On Fri, 17 Feb 2012, Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote:
On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 01:07:26AM -0800, Julian Elischer wrote:
On 2/17/12 12:58 AM, Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote:
I agree with everything except for per-CPU buffers. I understand the
need for using printf in low-level code and it indeed complicate
On Feb 16, 2012, at 11:45 PM, Julian Elischer wrote:
*snip*
>> The message buffer does not have to be a chunk of memory that
>> we circularly scribble to. It can be a per-cpu linked list of
>> messages even.
*snip*
> that is an intersting thought.. though.. how would you sort them into order
> f
On Fri, 17 Feb 2012, Andriy Gapon wrote:
Since this issue has generated a sudden interest, I would like to use this
opportunity to point my older proposal as well:
http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-arch/2011-August/011405.html
Sorry I didn't check this now, and I don't remember it fro
On Thu, 16 Feb 2012, Marcel Moolenaar wrote:
I think we should lift above the immediate problem and allow for
single- and multi-line messages that are atomically appended to
the message buffer. Console output and propagation of messages
outside of the kernel should all come out of the message bu
2012/2/17, Marcel Moolenaar :
>
> On Feb 16, 2012, at 4:19 PM, Andriy Gapon wrote:
>
>> on 17/02/2012 02:08 Kenneth D. Merry said the following:
>> [snip]
> On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 11:13:09 +0200, Andriy Gapon wrote:
>> [snip]
>> For me personally the immediate benefits in the common situat
On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 01:07:26AM -0800, Julian Elischer wrote:
> On 2/17/12 12:58 AM, Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote:
> > I agree with everything except for per-CPU buffers. I understand the
> > need for using printf in low-level code and it indeed complicates things.
> > The reason I don't like the i
On 2/17/12 12:58 AM, Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote:
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 08:49:05PM -0800, Marcel Moolenaar wrote:
On Feb 16, 2012, at 4:19 PM, Andriy Gapon wrote:
on 17/02/2012 02:08 Kenneth D. Merry said the following:
[snip]
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 11:13:09 +0200, Andriy Gapon wrote:
[snip
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 08:49:05PM -0800, Marcel Moolenaar wrote:
>
> On Feb 16, 2012, at 4:19 PM, Andriy Gapon wrote:
>
> > on 17/02/2012 02:08 Kenneth D. Merry said the following:
> > [snip]
> On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 11:13:09 +0200, Andriy Gapon wrote:
> > [snip]
> > For me personally
Since this issue has generated a sudden interest, I would like to use this
opportunity to point my older proposal as well:
http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-arch/2011-August/011405.html
Essentially the algorithm is:
1. atomically (CAS) reserve a space in the message data buffer
2. output
On 2/16/12 8:49 PM, Marcel Moolenaar wrote:
On Feb 16, 2012, at 4:19 PM, Andriy Gapon wrote:
on 17/02/2012 02:08 Kenneth D. Merry said the following:
[snip]
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 11:13:09 +0200, Andriy Gapon wrote:
[snip]
For me personally the immediate benefits in the common situations
ou
On Feb 16, 2012, at 4:19 PM, Andriy Gapon wrote:
> on 17/02/2012 02:08 Kenneth D. Merry said the following:
> [snip]
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 11:13:09 +0200, Andriy Gapon wrote:
> [snip]
> For me personally the immediate benefits in the common situations
> outweighed the
> proble
Replying to the thread so people don't think I'm ignoring it. I will
likely have time this weekend to fix the errors and come up with a
patch.
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 7:19 PM, Andriy Gapon wrote:
> on 17/02/2012 02:08 Kenneth D. Merry said the following:
> [snip]
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 11:1
on 17/02/2012 02:08 Kenneth D. Merry said the following:
[snip]
>>> On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 11:13:09 +0200, Andriy Gapon wrote:
[snip]
For me personally the immediate benefits in the common situations
outweighed the
problems in the edge cases, although I still believe that we can ge
On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 06:25:42 +1100, Bruce Evans wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Feb 2012, Kenneth D. Merry wrote:
>
> >On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 11:13:09 +0200, Andriy Gapon wrote:
> >>on 16/02/2012 11:00 Andriy Gapon said the following:
> >>>on 16/02/2012 10:53 Julian Elischer said the following:
> Bru
On Thu, 16 Feb 2012, Kenneth D. Merry wrote:
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 11:13:09 +0200, Andriy Gapon wrote:
on 16/02/2012 11:00 Andriy Gapon said the following:
on 16/02/2012 10:53 Julian Elischer said the following:
Bruce, this is a good example of a legitimate gripe going un-noticed because
yo
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 11:13:09 +0200, Andriy Gapon wrote:
> on 16/02/2012 11:00 Andriy Gapon said the following:
> > on 16/02/2012 10:53 Julian Elischer said the following:
> >> Bruce, this is a good example of a legitimate gripe going un-noticed
> >> because
> >> you didn't shout loud enough at
On Thu, 16 Feb 2012, Julian Elischer wrote:
On 2/16/12 12:39 AM, Bruce Evans wrote:
On Thu, 16 Feb 2012, Eitan Adler wrote:
Log:
Add a timestamp to the msgbuf output in order to determine when when
messages were printed.
This can be enabled with the kern.msgbuf_show_timestamp sysctl
Apa
on 16/02/2012 11:00 Andriy Gapon said the following:
> on 16/02/2012 10:53 Julian Elischer said the following:
>> Bruce, this is a good example of a legitimate gripe going un-noticed because
>> you didn't shout loud enough at the right time, at the right people.
>> It's been about 20 years since we
on 16/02/2012 10:53 Julian Elischer said the following:
> Bruce, this is a good example of a legitimate gripe going un-noticed because
> you didn't shout loud enough at the right time, at the right people.
> It's been about 20 years since we started working on this but I've finally
> come to the po
On 2/16/12 12:39 AM, Bruce Evans wrote:
On Thu, 16 Feb 2012, Eitan Adler wrote:
Log:
Add a timestamp to the msgbuf output in order to determine when when
messages were printed.
This can be enabled with the kern.msgbuf_show_timestamp sysctl
Apart from being fundamentally broken, this adds
On Thu, 16 Feb 2012, Eitan Adler wrote:
Log:
Add a timestamp to the msgbuf output in order to determine when when
messages were printed.
This can be enabled with the kern.msgbuf_show_timestamp sysctl
Apart from being fundamentally broken, this adds lots of bloat and
style bugs. The msgbuf
Author: eadler
Date: Thu Feb 16 05:11:35 2012
New Revision: 231814
URL: http://svn.freebsd.org/changeset/base/231814
Log:
Add a timestamp to the msgbuf output in order to determine when when
messages were printed.
This can be enabled with the kern.msgbuf_show_timestamp sysctl
PR:
28 matches
Mail list logo
