Date: 25 Nov 2000 15:28:31 +0100 From: Cyrille Lefevre <clefevre@cybercable.fr> To: Steve Kargl <sgk@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> Cc: Eivind Eklund <eivind@FreeBSD.ORG>, current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: INVARIANTS and -current Message-ID: <3dggktww.fsf@gits.dyndns.org> In-Reply-To: Steve Kargl's message of "Tue, 31 Oct 2000 09:38:39 -0800 (PST)" References: <200010311738.e9VHcdA51034@troutmask.apl.washington.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Steve Kargl <sgk@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> writes: > Eivind Eklund wrote: > > (Based on suggestion from Robert Watson.) > > > > I want to enable INVARIANTS by default in -current. This result in some > > slowdown, but it also makes it more likely that we'll find bugs quickly. > > People that want to run -current should know enough to disable it if it is > > in the way, anyway. > > I support your proposal. But, have a question: Has > anyone actually measured the performance impact of > INVARIANTS? I'm tempted to suggest that INVARIANTS > should be the default in not only -current in 5.0 > when she's released. Anyone interested in performance > in 5.0 will build custom kernels, and so he can turn > INVARIANTS off. sorry for the late answer. well, I'm not at all w/ you to enable INVARIANTS in -stable. the reason is simple. I had INVARIANTS for months (years?), but in september, I got plenty of "TRAP FAULT 12 and calcru: monotonisation" because of this. after disabling INVARIANTS, no problems anymore. I've posted a message about that in -stable w/ no answer, as I remember me. so, before to enable INVARIANTS in -stable or anywhere, the code should be much better checked, at least around kern_resource.c. Cyrille. -- home: mailto:clefevre@citeweb.net work: mailto:Cyrille.Lefevre@edf.fr To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3dggktww.fsf>