On 1/22/2015 4:27 AM, Konstantin Belousov wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 11:16:41AM +0100, Hans Petter Selasky wrote:
>> On 01/20/15 11:47, Slawa Olhovchenkov wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 08:29:47AM +0100, Hans Petter Selasky wrote:
>>>
On 01/17/15 23:18, Hans Petter Selasky wrote:
>>>
On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 11:16:41AM +0100, Hans Petter Selasky wrote:
> On 01/20/15 11:47, Slawa Olhovchenkov wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 08:29:47AM +0100, Hans Petter Selasky wrote:
> >
> >> On 01/17/15 23:18, Hans Petter Selasky wrote:
> >>> On 01/17/15 20:11, Jason Wolfe wrote:
>
> >>
On 01/20/15 11:47, Slawa Olhovchenkov wrote:
On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 08:29:47AM +0100, Hans Petter Selasky wrote:
On 01/17/15 23:18, Hans Petter Selasky wrote:
On 01/17/15 20:11, Jason Wolfe wrote:
HPS,
Just to give a quick status update, this patch has most certainly
resolved our spin lock
On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 08:29:47AM +0100, Hans Petter Selasky wrote:
> On 01/17/15 23:18, Hans Petter Selasky wrote:
> > On 01/17/15 20:11, Jason Wolfe wrote:
> >>
> >> HPS,
> >>
> >> Just to give a quick status update, this patch has most certainly
> >> resolved our spin lock held too long panics
On 01/17/15 23:18, Hans Petter Selasky wrote:
On 01/17/15 20:11, Jason Wolfe wrote:
HPS,
Just to give a quick status update, this patch has most certainly
resolved our spin lock held too long panics on stable/10.
Thank you to JHB for spending some time digging into the issue and
leading us to
On 01/17/15 20:11, Jason Wolfe wrote:
HPS,
Just to give a quick status update, this patch has most certainly
resolved our spin lock held too long panics on stable/10.
Thank you to JHB for spending some time digging into the issue and
leading us to td_slpcallout as the culprit, and HPS for your
On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 8:37 AM, Hans Petter Selasky wrote:
> On 01/14/15 15:31, Hans Petter Selasky wrote:
>>
>> On 01/11/15 19:08, Jason Wolfe wrote:
>>>
>>> Hans,
>>>
>>> We've had 50 machines running 10.1-STABLE with this patch for the
>>> better part of a week without issue. Prior we would h
On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 05:42:36PM +0100, Hans Petter Selasky wrote:
> On 01/15/15 16:58, Slawa Olhovchenkov wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 04:51:00PM +0100, Hans Petter Selasky wrote:
> >
> >> On 01/15/15 16:46, Slawa Olhovchenkov wrote:
> >>> On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 04:37:51PM +0100, Hans Pe
On 01/15/15 16:58, Slawa Olhovchenkov wrote:
On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 04:51:00PM +0100, Hans Petter Selasky wrote:
On 01/15/15 16:46, Slawa Olhovchenkov wrote:
On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 04:37:51PM +0100, Hans Petter Selasky wrote:
Only stability impovement?
Or performance too?
Hi,
Stability i
On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 04:51:00PM +0100, Hans Petter Selasky wrote:
> On 01/15/15 16:46, Slawa Olhovchenkov wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 04:37:51PM +0100, Hans Petter Selasky wrote:
> >
> > Only stability impovement?
> > Or performance too?
>
> Hi,
>
> Stability improvement mostly. Should
On 01/15/15 16:46, Slawa Olhovchenkov wrote:
On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 04:37:51PM +0100, Hans Petter Selasky wrote:
Only stability impovement?
Or performance too?
Hi,
Stability improvement mostly. Should not affect performance from what I
know. Some changes are made about when and how we can s
On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 04:37:51PM +0100, Hans Petter Selasky wrote:
> On 01/14/15 15:31, Hans Petter Selasky wrote:
> > On 01/11/15 19:08, Jason Wolfe wrote:
> >> Hans,
> >>
> >> We've had 50 machines running 10.1-STABLE with this patch for the
> >> better part of a week without issue. Prior we
On 01/14/15 15:31, Hans Petter Selasky wrote:
On 01/11/15 19:08, Jason Wolfe wrote:
Hans,
We've had 50 machines running 10.1-STABLE with this patch for the
better part of a week without issue. Prior we would have seen a panic
every few days at the least, so things are looking very promising on
On 01/11/15 19:08, Jason Wolfe wrote:
Hans,
We've had 50 machines running 10.1-STABLE with this patch for the
better part of a week without issue. Prior we would have seen a panic
every few days at the least, so things are looking very promising on
our front.
Jason
Hi,
I've updated D1438 in
Hans,
We've had 50 machines running 10.1-STABLE with this patch for the
better part of a week without issue. Prior we would have seen a panic
every few days at the least, so things are looking very promising on
our front.
Jason
On Sun, Jan 11, 2015 at 8:44 AM, Hans Petter Selasky wrote:
> On 0
On 01/07/15 00:10, Jason Wolfe wrote:
Hans,
We've been running into 'spin lock held too long' panics in the kernel
idle threads on 10-STABLE over the past 6 months, so I was interested
to see your work here in the callout code. I went ahead and brought
this patch back to a recent 10.1-STABLE b
On Sun, Jan 4, 2015 at 1:48 PM, Hans Petter Selasky wrote:
> On 01/04/15 19:58, Adrian Chadd wrote:
>>
>> Hi!
>>
>> Can you throw this into reviews.freebsd.org please? This is something
>> that should be very closely reviewed and tested.
>>
>> (I'm going to go over this quite closely as it related
On 01/04/15 19:58, Adrian Chadd wrote:
Hi!
Can you throw this into reviews.freebsd.org please? This is something
that should be very closely reviewed and tested.
(I'm going to go over this quite closely as it related to a lot of the
random crap I do ..)
Hi Adrian,
Here you go:
https://revi
Hi!
Can you throw this into reviews.freebsd.org please? This is something
that should be very closely reviewed and tested.
(I'm going to go over this quite closely as it related to a lot of the
random crap I do ..)
-adrian
On 4 January 2015 at 04:15, Hans Petter Selasky wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Plea
Hi,
Please find attached an updated timeout patch which also updates clients
in the kernel area to use the callout API properly, like cv_timedwait().
Previously there was some custom sleepqueue code in the callout
subsystem. All of that has now been removed and we allow callouts to be
protect
On 01/01/15 02:16, Hans Petter Selasky wrote:
On 01/01/15 02:02, Hans Petter Selasky wrote:
On 12/31/14 23:56, Ivan Klymenko wrote:
В Mon, 29 Dec 2014 21:03:24 +0100
Hans Petter Selasky пишет:
Hi,
Is your kernel compiled with Witness? Do you see any lock order reversal
warnings?
Can you d
On 01/01/15 02:02, Hans Petter Selasky wrote:
On 12/31/14 23:56, Ivan Klymenko wrote:
В Mon, 29 Dec 2014 21:03:24 +0100
Hans Petter Selasky пишет:
Hi,
Is your kernel compiled with Witness? Do you see any lock order reversal
warnings?
Can you do from kgdb:
thread apply all bt
And send me
On 12/31/14 23:56, Ivan Klymenko wrote:
В Mon, 29 Dec 2014 21:03:24 +0100
Hans Petter Selasky пишет:
Hi,
Is your kernel compiled with Witness? Do you see any lock order reversal
warnings?
Can you do from kgdb:
thread apply all bt
And send me the result off-list?
I'll have a closer look
В Mon, 29 Dec 2014 21:03:24 +0100
Hans Petter Selasky пишет:
> Hi,
>
> I recently came across a class of errors which lead me into
> investigating the "kern/kern_timeout.c" and its subsystem. From what
> I can see new features like the SMP awareness has been "added"
> instead of fully "integrat
On 12/29/14 21:04, Garrett Cooper wrote:
On Dec 29, 2014, at 12:03, Hans Petter Selasky wrote:
Hi,
…
Hi HPS,
Could you please send this to -arch instead and CC jhb?
Thanks!
Done!
--HPS
___
freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list
http:
On Dec 29, 2014, at 12:03, Hans Petter Selasky wrote:
> Hi,
…
Hi HPS,
Could you please send this to -arch instead and CC jhb?
Thanks!
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
Hi,
I recently came across a class of errors which lead me into
investigating the "kern/kern_timeout.c" and its subsystem. From what I
can see new features like the SMP awareness has been "added" instead of
fully "integrated". When going into the cornercases I've uncovered that
the internal c
27 matches
Mail list logo
