On Dec 1, 2003, at 10:15 PM, Scott Long wrote:
Jonathan Mini wrote:
I have found that the cost of printing the spew often
slows down compiles measurably, especially when spewing
to an xterm running on a local XFree86 process. Even
with syscons, this is noticeable.
I generally tend to run my
peed-up by writing to a
file instead of the console?
--
Jonathan Mini
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.freebsd.org
___
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
On Nov 10, 2003, at 1:39 AM, Andre Oppermann wrote:
Jonathan Mini wrote:
All in all I don't think it is worth adding this complexity.
I agree.
This is actually a small value for TCP connections which are being
used to forward messages, especially on gigabit links.
Heavily-intensiv
On Nov 9, 2003, at 2:47 PM, Andre Oppermann wrote:
Jonathan Mini wrote:
On Nov 9, 2003, at 8:19 AM, Andre Oppermann wrote:
- DoS attack 2: make MSS very low on local side of connection
and send mny small packet to remote host. For every packet
(eg. 2 bytes payload) a sowakeup is
as if it might be worthwhile to add a delay to
the TF_NODELAY case for receive processing as well.
--
Jonathan Mini
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.freebsd.org
___
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
To
.r_regs[i] &= 0x;
> after.r_regs[i] &= 0x;
> }
> for (i = 0; i < NUM_REGS; i++)
> if (before.r_regs[i] != after.r_regs[i])
> printf("Register %s ch
I'm seeing this reversal:
lock order reversal
1st 0xc8b01664 DIRHASH (UMA zone) @ ../../../vm/uma_core.c:527
2nd 0xc042a724 PCPU KMAP ENTRY (UMA cpu) @ ../../../vm/uma_core.c:1301
Is this known?
--
Jonathan Mini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
http://www.haikugeek.com
"He who is
-125,7 +125,6 @@
if (ep == NULL)
TAILQ_INSERT_TAIL(&list->el_entries, &eg->ee, ee_link);
EHE_UNLOCK(list);
-mtx_unlock(&eventhandler_mutex);
return(&eg->ee);
}
--
Jonathan Mini
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
desolation... despair... plastic forks...
To Unsubscr
