Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2020 16:41:59 -0500 From: "Brandon Bergren" <bdragon@FreeBSD.org> To: "Mark Millard" <marklmi@yahoo.com>, "Justin Hibbits" <chmeeedalf@gmail.com> Cc: "Eric van Gyzen" <vangyzen@FreeBSD.org>, svn-src-head@freebsd.org, "FreeBSD Current" <freebsd-current@freebsd.org>, "FreeBSD Hackers" <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>, "FreeBSD PowerPC ML" <freebsd-ppc@freebsd.org> Subject: =?UTF-8?Q?Re:_svn_commit:_r360233_-_in_head:_contrib/jemalloc_._._._:_Th?= =?UTF-8?Q?is_partially_breaks_a_2-socket_32-bit_powerpc_(old_PowerMac_G?= =?UTF-8?Q?4)_based_on_head_-r360311?= Message-ID: <8bf74674-4ccf-4f97-bbc5-fa5131209b66@www.fastmail.com> In-Reply-To: <5542B85D-1C3A-41D8-98CE-3C02E990C3EB@yahoo.com> References: <C24EE1A1-FAED-42C2-8204-CA7B1D20A369@yahoo.com> <8479DD58-44F6-446A-9CA5-D01F0F7C1B38@yahoo.com> <17ACDA02-D7EF-4F26-874A-BB3E935CD072@yahoo.com> <695E6836-F860-4557-B7DE-CC1EDB347F18@yahoo.com> <DCABCD83-27B0-4F2D-9410-69102294A98E@yahoo.com> <121B9B09-141B-4DC3-918B-1E7CFB99E779@yahoo.com> <8AAB0462-3FA8-490C-8D8D-7C15B1C9E2DE@yahoo.com> <18E62746-80DB-4195-977D-4FF32D0129EE@yahoo.com> <F5953A6B-56CE-4D1C-8C18-58D44B639881@yahoo.com> <D0C483E5-3F6A-4816-A6BA-3D2C82C24F8E@yahoo.com> <C440956F-139E-4EF7-A68E-FE35D9934BD3@yahoo.com> <9562EEE4-62EF-4164-91C0-948CC0432984@yahoo.com> <9B68839B-AEC8-43EE-B3B6-B696A4A57DAE@yahoo.com> <359C9C7D-4106-42B5-AAB5-08EF995B8100@yahoo.com> <20200513105632.06db9e21@titan.knownspace> <B1225914-43BC-44EF-A73E-D06B890229C6@yahoo.com> <20200611155545.55526f7c@ralga.knownspace> <5542B85D-1C3A-41D8-98CE-3C02E990C3EB@yahoo.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
An update from my end: I now have the ability to test dual processor G4 as well, now that mine is up and running. On Thu, Jun 11, 2020, at 4:36 PM, Mark Millard wrote: > > How did you test? > > In my context it was far easier to see the problem > with builds that did not use MALLOC_PRODUCTION. In > other words: jemalloc having its asserts tested. > > The easiest way I found to get the asserts to fail > was to do (multiple processes (-m) and totaling to > more than enough to force paging/swapping): > > stress -m 2 --vm-bytes 1700M & > > (Possibly setting up some shells first > to potentially later exit.) > > Normally stress itself would hit jemalloc > asserts. Apparently the asserts did not > stop the code and it ran until a failure > occurred (via dtv=0x0). I never had to > manually stop the stress processes. > > If no failures during, then exit shells > that likely were swapped out or partially > paged out during the stress run. They > hit jemalloc asserts during their cleanup > activity in my testing. > > > > That said, the attached patch effectively copies > > what's done in OEA6464 into OEA pmap. Can you test it? > > I'll try it once I get a chance, probably later > today. > > I gather from what I see that moea64_protect did not > need the changes that you originally thought might > be required? I only see moea_protect changes in the > patch. > > === > Mark Millard > marklmi at yahoo.com > ( dsl-only.net went > away in early 2018-Mar) > > -- Brandon Bergren bdragon@FreeBSD.org
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?8bf74674-4ccf-4f97-bbc5-fa5131209b66>