From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Jul 12 03:56:04 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: arch@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2522916A41C; Tue, 12 Jul 2005 03:56:04 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from peter@wemm.org) Received: from canning.wemm.org (canning.wemm.org [192.203.228.65]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD5C643D45; Tue, 12 Jul 2005 03:56:03 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from peter@wemm.org) Received: from fw.wemm.org (canning.wemm.org [192.203.228.65]) by canning.wemm.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A50BE2A8DA; Mon, 11 Jul 2005 20:56:03 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from peter@wemm.org) Received: from overcee.wemm.org (overcee.wemm.org [10.0.0.3]) by fw.wemm.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 54233E2B3; Mon, 11 Jul 2005 20:56:03 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from peter@wemm.org) Received: from overcee.wemm.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by overcee.wemm.org (8.13.4/8.13.1) with ESMTP id j6C3u26l079995; Mon, 11 Jul 2005 20:56:02 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from peter@wemm.org) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by overcee.wemm.org (8.13.4/8.13.1/Submit) id j6C3u2xU079994; Mon, 11 Jul 2005 20:56:02 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from peter@wemm.org) X-Authentication-Warning: overcee.wemm.org: peter set sender to peter@wemm.org using -f From: Peter Wemm To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2005 20:56:01 -0700 User-Agent: KMail/1.8.1 References: <20050701132104.GA95135@freefall.freebsd.org> <20050701155757.A36905@fledge.watson.org> In-Reply-To: <20050701155757.A36905@fledge.watson.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200507112056.02249.peter@wemm.org> X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 12 Jul 2005 11:47:54 +0000 Cc: Peter Edwards , arch@freebsd.org, Robert Watson Subject: Re: ktrace and KTR_DROP X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2005 03:56:04 -0000 On Friday 01 July 2005 08:04 am, Robert Watson wrote: > On Fri, 1 Jul 2005, Peter Edwards wrote: > > Ever since the introduction of a separate ktrace worker thread for > > writing output, there's the distinct possibility that ktrace output > > will drop requests. For some proceses, it's actually inevitable: as > > long as the traced processes can sustain a rate of generating > > ktrace events faster than the ktrace thread can write them, you'll > > eventually run out of ktrace requests. [..] > One of the things I've been thinking for a few years is that I think > I actually preferred the old model better, there processes (now > threads) would hang a "current record" off of their process (now > thread) structure, and fill it in as they went along. I much prefer the old model as well. I personally would like to have syscall returns delayed if the outstanding writes for ktrace requests is above a certain watermark. There have been several suggestions for how to do this. This could be as simple as throttling *all* ktrace writers as they return to userland from syscalls if the backlog is getting too large. But probably better would be to have each process responsible for its own writing and backlog management. ie: queue up the records to memory just like now, and start unwinding them at a convenient location in syscall return. -- Peter Wemm - peter@wemm.org; peter@FreeBSD.org; peter@yahoo-inc.com "All of this is for nothing if we don't go to the stars" - JMS/B5 From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Jul 12 13:55:46 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: arch@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A27FE16A41F; Tue, 12 Jul 2005 13:55:46 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from jhb@FreeBSD.org) Received: from mv.twc.weather.com (mv.twc.weather.com [65.212.71.225]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B27ED43D48; Tue, 12 Jul 2005 13:55:45 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from jhb@FreeBSD.org) Received: from [10.50.40.201] (Not Verified[65.202.103.25]) by mv.twc.weather.com with NetIQ MailMarshal (v6, 0, 3, 8) id ; Tue, 12 Jul 2005 10:09:50 -0400 From: John Baldwin To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2005 09:55:56 -0400 User-Agent: KMail/1.8 References: <20050701132104.GA95135@freefall.freebsd.org> <20050701155757.A36905@fledge.watson.org> <200507112056.02249.peter@wemm.org> In-Reply-To: <200507112056.02249.peter@wemm.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200507120955.58014.jhb@FreeBSD.org> X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 13 Jul 2005 11:49:18 +0000 Cc: Peter Edwards , arch@freebsd.org, Robert Watson Subject: Re: ktrace and KTR_DROP X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2005 13:55:46 -0000 On Monday 11 July 2005 11:56 pm, Peter Wemm wrote: > On Friday 01 July 2005 08:04 am, Robert Watson wrote: > > On Fri, 1 Jul 2005, Peter Edwards wrote: > > > Ever since the introduction of a separate ktrace worker thread for > > > writing output, there's the distinct possibility that ktrace output > > > will drop requests. For some proceses, it's actually inevitable: as > > > long as the traced processes can sustain a rate of generating > > > ktrace events faster than the ktrace thread can write them, you'll > > > eventually run out of ktrace requests. > > [..] > > > One of the things I've been thinking for a few years is that I think > > I actually preferred the old model better, there processes (now > > threads) would hang a "current record" off of their process (now > > thread) structure, and fill it in as they went along. > > I much prefer the old model as well. I personally would like to have > syscall returns delayed if the outstanding writes for ktrace requests > is above a certain watermark. There have been several suggestions for > how to do this. > > This could be as simple as throttling *all* ktrace writers as they > return to userland from syscalls if the backlog is getting too large. > But probably better would be to have each process responsible for its > own writing and backlog management. ie: queue up the records to memory > just like now, and start unwinding them at a convenient location in > syscall return. If you do that then you can still drop records if you use up too many before you finally return from your system call. The patch at the start of this thread I think is the better approach as it blocks the thread once there aren't any free request tokens so that the thread will be throttled when the system gets behind, but will free run as long as the system can keep up. -- John Baldwin <>< http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/ "Power Users Use the Power to Serve" = http://www.FreeBSD.org From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Jul 15 08:43:20 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: arch@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 845D116A41C; Fri, 15 Jul 2005 08:43:20 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from eefxhg@fastermail.com) Received: from smtp.cashette.com (p54ADFF08.dip.t-dialin.net [84.173.255.8]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2AB5243D45; Fri, 15 Jul 2005 08:43:18 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from eefxhg@fastermail.com) message-id: <00a101c58919$440bf830$5533550e@oo.a.rk> From: "Ross" To: Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2005 04:43:25 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.3790.1830 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.3790.1830 Cc: Subject: Under The Radar Equity Alert X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2005 08:43:21 -0000 AmeriChip International Inc (ACHI) Current Price: 0.022 Does it Sound New and Exciting to You? Watch This One Trade Friday. Breaking News!! The Board of Directors of AmeriChip International Inc. (ACHI- News) is pleased to announce that Seco-Carboloy (``Carboloy'') has awarded an expanded territory in the state of Michigan to the Company's wholly owned subsidiary, AmeriChip Tool and Abrasives (``ATA'') as a direct result of successful representation of the Carboloy line of machine tools since July 2004. ATA has experienced increased sales over the past two months which will be reflected in our 10Q due to be filed on July 15th. Mr. Tom Frasier, ATA's vice president of sales, said, ``In order to take advantage of the 0pp0rtunity to maximize its sales objectives afforded by the new territory, the Company intends to expand its sales force. The addition to our sales force will allow us to be very competitive in a $35 milli0n industry.'' As previously reported, the Company is working closely with Carboloy in its on-going efforts to assist AmeriChip's customers in maximizing cost sav-ings in all aspects of metal removal in the machining of their parts. The Company's relationship with Carboloy centers around machine time studies as they relate to throughput and tool evaluations upon the implementation of the Company's Laser Assisted Chip Control technology. Headquartered in Plymouth, MI, AmeriChip International Inc., a process technology company, holds a patented technology known as Laser Assisted Chip Control, the implementation of which results in efficient chip control management in industrial metal machining applications. This technology provides substantial sav-ings in machining costs of certain automobile parts providing much more competitive pricing and more aggressive sales approaches within the industry. The innovative AmeriChip business model, enhanced by its AmeriChip Tool and Abrasives subsidiary, is designed to establish an extensive resource for cost saving services and products that all cost-conscious industrial steel and aluminum machining companies require. AmeriChip is committed to keeping jobs in America for Americans. About the Company AmeriChip International Inc., through its wholly owned subsidiary AmeriChip Ventures, Inc. has developed a patented technology, supported by 15 years of engineering, designed to eliminate the long and often dangerous ribbon-like steel chips that tangle around moving tool parts, automation devices and other compontents essential to the machine processing of low to medium grade carbon steels and non-ferrous metals. The result of this process is a superior product, manufactured in a safer working environment, avoiding many of the health and safety issues associated with traditional metal processing methodologies, while offering potential cost s a v i n g s int the billions of dollars. Conclusion: The Examples Above Show The Awesome, Earning Potential of Little Known Companies That Explode Onto Investor's Radar Screens; Many of You Are Already Familiar with This. Is ACHI Poised and Positioned to Do that For You? Then You May Feel the Time Has Come to Act... And Please Watch this One Trade Thursday! Go ACHI. Penny stocks are considered highly speculative and may be unsuitable for all but very aggressive investors. This Profile is not in any way affiliated with the featured company. We were compensated 3000 dollars to distribute this report. This report is for entertainment and advertising purposes only and should not be used as investment advice. If you wish to stop future mailings, or if you feel you have been wrongfully placed in our membership, send a blank e mail with No Thanks in the sub ject to