Date: Sun, 13 Jun 2004 23:59:40 -0400 From: Brian Feldman <green@freebsd.org> To: Marius Strobl <marius@alchemy.franken.de> Cc: ports-committers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/sysutils/cdrdao Makefile distinfo ports/sysutils/cdrdao/files patch-Makefile.in patch-configure patch-dao::ScsiIf-lib.cc patch-dao::cdrdao.drivers patch-dao::dao.cc patch-paranoia::isort.c patch-trackdb::Track.cc patch-trackdb::lec.cc ... Message-ID: <20040614035939.GC39574@green.homeunix.org> In-Reply-To: <20040614052835.I1600@newtrinity.zeist.de> References: <200406131501.i5DF1Sqm065546@repoman.freebsd.org> <20040614021442.GB39574@green.homeunix.org> <20040614052835.I1600@newtrinity.zeist.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Jun 14, 2004 at 05:28:35AM +0200, Marius Strobl wrote: > On Sun, Jun 13, 2004 at 10:14:42PM -0400, Brian Feldman wrote: > > On Sun, Jun 13, 2004 at 03:01:28PM +0000, Alexander Leidinger wrote: > > > - Disable the use of mlockall(2) on FreeBSD 5, even after the last round > > > of fixes there are still issues. > > > > What are you referring to? The issues that are still there should not > > affect simple mlockall(2) usage. > > > > - On i386, depending on the program, mlockall() always returns EAGAIN. > E.g. ntpd of the net/ntp port exhibits this problem. This isn't an > issue with cdrdao. > - On sparc64, every call of mlockall(MCL_CURRENT) returns EAGAIN, even > in a program just doing that. Yes, there is a problem with mlockall(2), especially with NTPD: if the VM space has areas that have no read protection, i.e. PROT_NONElike NTPD is mapping for some reason, it will fail in this manner. There are several possible ways to fix this (one of which I've implemented); Alan Cox's suggestion to pretend PROT_NONE is PROT_READ when wiring is much simpler to implement. Could you cat a /proc/curproc/map from the current running process on sparc64 after mlockall(2) fails? > Don't know about the other architectures. So there is no technical > reason to not to use mlockall() as it no longer seems to have side > effects (at least not on i386 and sparc64) like random processes > crashing when another one uses it or causing panics like it did in > the beginning. But I don't want to frighten the users of a port > with the warnings that the failing mlockall() causes, especially > if it is a verbose one like that of cdrecord. I think it's best to enable mlockall(2) like the software creators intended and let their documentation handle any confusion by the user. -- Brian Fundakowski Feldman \'[ FreeBSD ]''''''''''\ <> green@FreeBSD.org \ The Power to Serve! \ Opinions expressed are my own. \,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,\
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040614035939.GC39574>