Date: Fri, 20 May 2005 17:15:36 +0400 From: Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@FreeBSD.org> To: Jeremie Le Hen <jeremie@le-hen.org> Cc: freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: panic in recent RELENG_5 tcp code path Message-ID: <20050520131536.GA30219@cell.sick.ru> In-Reply-To: <20050520131031.GU818@obiwan.tataz.chchile.org> References: <20050515120007.GA777@obiwan.tataz.chchile.org> <20050518155130.H87264@carver.gumbysoft.com> <20050519125639.GK818@obiwan.tataz.chchile.org> <20050520080435.GB26938@cell.sick.ru> <20050520131031.GU818@obiwan.tataz.chchile.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Jeremie, On Fri, May 20, 2005 at 03:10:32PM +0200, Jeremie Le Hen wrote: J> > according to the fact that the panic occured in dereferncing mbuf pointer J> > your kernel is compiled without INVARIANTS. J> > J> > Please compile it with INVARIANTS. This will probably help to trigger panic J> > earlier, and it will be more clear. J> J> a quick look at src/conf/NOTES reveals the following : J> %%% J> # J> # The INVARIANTS option is used in a number of source files to enable J> # extra sanity checking of internal structures. This support is not J> # enabled by default because of the extra time it would take to check J> # for these conditions, which can only occur as a result of J> # programming errors. J> # J> %%% J> J> I'm going to recompile my kernel with INVARIANTS but I wonder in J> which order of magniture it will slow my kernel down. In other words, J> what does INVARIANTS do concretely, shall I expect a performance drop J> like WITNESS does ? No. The performance loss is _much_ less significant than in WITNESS case. You probably will not notice it. -- Totus tuus, Glebius. GLEBIUS-RIPN GLEB-RIPE
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20050520131536.GA30219>