Date: Fri, 06 Feb 2009 12:21:03 +0100 From: Alexander Leidinger <Alexander@Leidinger.net> To: Kostik Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com> Cc: freebsd-emulation@freebsd.org, Chagin Dmitry <dchagin@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH] futexes, flash9 related Message-ID: <20090206122103.9886475rqvyhdt2c@webmail.leidinger.net> In-Reply-To: <20090206092821.GM9427@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> References: <20081221174939.GA33531@dchagin.dialup.corbina.ru> <747dc8f30902050220y7b1d726bj9f6f83afa843b520@mail.gmail.com> <20090206063550.GA2123@dchagin.static.corbina.ru> <20090206094728.10822rj93nm7s280@webmail.leidinger.net> <20090206092821.GM9427@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Quoting Kostik Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com> (from Fri, 6 Feb 2009 =20 11:28:21 +0200): > On Fri, Feb 06, 2009 at 09:47:28AM +0100, Alexander Leidinger wrote: >> Quoting Chagin Dmitry <dchagin@freebsd.org> (from Fri, 6 Feb 2009 >> 09:35:50 +0300): >> >> >On Thu, Feb 05, 2009 at 08:20:13AM -0200, Renato Botelho wrote: >> >>On Sun, Dec 21, 2008 at 3:49 PM, Chagin Dmitry <dchagin@freebsd.org> >> >>wrote: >> >>> >> >>> Hi, >> >>> /me ready to present patches for testing (nor review). >> >>> >> >>> The primary goal - the futexes code is rewrited, Giant removed. >> >>> >> >>> head: http://people.freebsd.org/~timur/dchagin/mega-head.linux.patch >> >>> stable/7: http://people.freebsd.org/~timur/dchagin/mega-st7.linux.pat= ch >> >>> >> >>> Please, test and report any problems. thnx! >> >> >> >>Hello, >> >> >> >>I would like to test this because i'm having some freezes on >> >>firefox3 + flash9 + 8.0-current i386 r188003 but the patch >> >>doesn't apply cleanly here, is there a new version that i've >> >>missed? >> >> >> > >> >hi, >> >try http://lnxx64.googlecode.com/files/futexes_partial.patch >> >> Please let the DEBUG part as it is, I'm in the process of converting >> it to DTrace >> (http://svnweb.freebsd.org/viewvc/base/user/netchild/linuxulator-dtrace/)= . > > DTrace is absolutely unsuitable for getting the _traces_ from the kernel, > as well as the kernel printfs. Moreover, use of KTR is in-line with other > tracing points in *our* kernel. Could you please be more specific (maybe some examples) about what you =20 mean by "unsuitable"? Maybe I have a different understanding of =20 "traces" than you have. For the places where KTR is used in _this =20 patch_, DTrace seems to be suitable to me. AFAIR KTR needs to be specially enabled at compile time, while DTrace =20 can be enabled at run-time. Is the KTR part correct? If yes, I see a =20 benefit in using DTrace instead of KTR. Apart from that, DTrace has =20 some advantages (DTrace scripts, limiting the tracing to just use =20 within a specific application, conditional tracing, ...) over KTR, so =20 if it is not something performance critical where DTrace is not able =20 to handle it but KTR is, or something which DTrace is not able to =20 handle at all, I see no point in not converting to DTrace (it has the =20 advantage that it can be used even on a production system, where I =20 wouldn't let KTR in the kernel on a production system). Bye, Alexander. --=20 BOFH excuse #170: popper unable to process jumbo kernel http://www.Leidinger.net Alexander @ Leidinger.net: PGP ID =3D B0063FE7 http://www.FreeBSD.org netchild @ FreeBSD.org : PGP ID =3D 72077137
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20090206122103.9886475rqvyhdt2c>