Date: Sun, 29 Sep 1996 16:24:11 -0700 From: erich@uruk.org To: Steve Passe <smp@csn.net> Cc: freebsd-smp@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Tyan S1562D Tomcat2 Message-ID: <199609292324.QAA28911@uruk.org> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 29 Sep 1996 16:52:39 MDT." <199609292252.QAA21480@clem.systemsix.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Steve Passe <smp@csn.net> writes: > Peter reports (NOT directly in reply to this mailing): > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Well, based on what we now know about things that we don't do, I'm a little > amazed that it's working as well as it seems to be in general. We are not > doing TLB invalidation of other cpu's into account when modifying other > processes page tables (which are possibly running on another cpu). > > This is a time-bomb that will affect low-memory or otherwise memory starved > systems far worse than those that have plenty. (I run on 48M of ram and don't > see it at all for days. I would expect 16M systems would be pretty bumpy.) > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > I have 64 meg and never see it. I suspect your getting hit by this > problem. Unfortunately I don't have a solution. Anyone have a suggestion > for "proving" this theory? > I have 64MB and see something like this problem quite a bit once I turn on the second CPU (well, if I'm doing something big like a GCC compile). I'm not claiming it is exactly the same problem. Interestingly enough, it always seems particular problems are caused by "ln" (it gets memory core dumps very often) and GCC's "enquire" simply locks the machine solid. -- Erich Stefan Boleyn \_ E-mail (preferred): <erich@uruk.org> Mad Genius wanna-be, CyberMuffin \__ (finger me for other stats) Web: http://www.uruk.org/~erich/ Motto: "I'll live forever or die trying"
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199609292324.QAA28911>