From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Nov 14 00:38:39 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 48BB2106566C; Mon, 14 Nov 2011 00:38:39 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from lacombar@gmail.com) Received: from mail-wy0-f182.google.com (mail-wy0-f182.google.com [74.125.82.182]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9EC8A8FC0C; Mon, 14 Nov 2011 00:38:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: by wyf23 with SMTP id 23so4426357wyf.13 for ; Sun, 13 Nov 2011 16:38:37 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=2ce63yKoz0NoEXN0FKOW7DuESYP496Pctl09OAakAJY=; b=s9qlOH0whWncb/pfS3wiJ8QlbIPe1dN69cg4aQIyM50jWn8tmRnT9IZWGzO9EseVUC NHEJuWZ4XUr2w6NsWTJaTcaMOkA4HNbEvjpTd8B1UhfnOskvIaT4TTLV86CZSJB2DL3u wUszU12oXCXEcjQaAulkwmgsSQyd6mlg4yzDA= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.180.3.71 with SMTP id a7mr23417683wia.0.1321231117493; Sun, 13 Nov 2011 16:38:37 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.180.81.200 with HTTP; Sun, 13 Nov 2011 16:38:37 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <4EBABAC1.2090003@freebsd.org> References: <4EB9C469.9070208@freebsd.org> <4EB9E6FE.3060102@freebsd.org> <4EBABAC1.2090003@freebsd.org> Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2011 19:38:37 -0500 Message-ID: From: Arnaud Lacombe To: Julian Elischer Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Using Instruction Pointer address in debug interfaces [Was: Re: vm_page_t related KBI [Was: Re: panic at vm_page_wire with FreeBSD 9.0 Beta 3]] X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2011 00:38:39 -0000 Hi, On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 12:39 PM, Julian Elischer wrote= : > On 11/8/11 9:29 PM, Arnaud Lacombe wrote: > [...] > >> However, if you want to know, my heart tends to be with BSDs. >> Unfortunately, it's a sad love-story where your Beloved keeps >> deceiving you day after day. You want to change small bits at a time, >> make several iteration of progress to make things brighter, but your >> Beloved refuses any change because of too much inertia. Sad. > > mostly it's because you keep attacking your loved one with a steak knife. > flowers might get you further. Well, it would would seem that keeping sending patch is what you consider "attacking your loved one with a steak knife", because yes, this is what I will keep doing. >>> >>> so you are used to doing it that way.. but don't expect us to change ju= st >>> because that's what Linux does. >>> >> again, mentioning Linux is totally irrelevant. Use of Instruction >> Pointer are implementation details for a not so intrusive solution to >> the problem I pointed out, and which you are totally missing. > > since these modules were written many new options have come. Maybe this is the real problem, FreeBSD is unable to keep up and to make interfaces written +10 years ago evolves. Worst, you (committers) keep on taking decision based on changes made 10 to 12 years ago that are totally irrelevant today, making these decisions nothing but plain bad. >> well, you're lucky FreeBSD supports your device! Lately, we got lately >> a shiny multi-queue network cards with bypass mechanism... that is not >> supported in FreeBSD. So currently, we got an expensive paper-weight. > > well write a driver for it.. > my time is limited, and you (FreeBSD folks) seem to love making it even busier by your inability to make some parts of the system evolve, or by taking bad decision. This generally happens when I try to optimize some of our internal code path, hit a system bottleneck, try to prove the system is wrong, and then eventually, think about optimizing it, implement the solution one or twice, and get slammed hard when I go public with both the proof of performance hit/non-correctness/incompleteness and the correction. Unfortunately, the time complexity of the whole process is 2^O(n) :( > what do you think I'm doing with the driver I'm > talking about? > I wrote several bypass network card drivers when I was at cisco/ironport.= . > it's not rocket science, > though it would be nice if we were to come up with a standard interface f= or > bypass interfaces. indeed. > That is a different topic though.. > indeed. >>> 1/ half the time freebsd will just immediatly assert on something and >>> present you with the bug.. done. >>> >> well, certainly not from a release build; assertion are disabled. > > During development. we NEVER have bugs in production ;-) > [sic.] >> [0]: I am able to crash any kernel between 7-STABLE to 9.STABLE within >> minutes, with the right pattern and (mainstream and well supported) >> hardware. > > and who have you reported that to? =A0bug number? > http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-net/2011-September/029722.html I suspect PR/155597 and a few other are related. >> [3]: FreeBSD (8-STABLE) is way to limited and un-integrated to be >> anywhere but useful, not to speak about kernel bug which leave the >> system so fracked up that you have no other choice but to hard-reboot. > > bug number? > usb/156725, amd64/156726 - Arnaud