Date: Sun, 03 May 2020 09:56:02 -0500 From: "Brandon Bergren" <bdragon@FreeBSD.org> To: "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: <b7297680-2f4e-4b75-9303-274f4461a0b6@www.fastmail.com> In-Reply-To: <922FBA7C-039D-4852-AC8F-E85A221C2559@yahoo.com> References: <C24EE1A1-FAED-42C2-8204-CA7B1D20A369.ref@yahoo.com> <C24EE1A1-FAED-42C2-8204-CA7B1D20A369@yahoo.com> <1588493689.54538000.et1xl2l8@frv55.fwdcdn.com> <922FBA7C-039D-4852-AC8F-E85A221C2559@yahoo.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, May 3, 2020, at 9:38 AM, Mark Millard via freebsd-ppc wrote: > > Observing and reporting the reverting result is an initial > part of problem isolation. I made no request for FreeBSD > to give up on using the updated jemalloc. (Unfortunately, > I'm not sure what a good next step of problem isolation > might be for the dual-socket PowerMac G4 context.) I appreciate this testing btw. The only dual-socket G4 I have (my xserve g4) does not have the second socket populated, so I am currently unable to test two-socket ppc32. > Other than reverting, no patch is known for the issue at > this point. More problem isolation is needed first. > > While I do not have access, https://wiki.freebsd.org/powerpc > lists more modern 32-bit powerpc hardware as supported: > MPC85XX evaluation boards and AmigaOne A1222 (powerpcspe). > (The AmigaOne A1222 seems to be dual-ore/single-socket.) jhibbits has an A1222 that is used as an actual primary desktop, and I will hopefully have one at the end of the year. And I have an RB800 that I use for testing. powerpcspe is really a different beast than aim32 though. I have been mainly working on aim32 on g4 laptops, although I do have an xserve. > > So folks with access to one of those may want to see > if they also see the problem(s) with head -r360233 or > later. Frankly, I wouldn't be surprised if this continues to be down to the timebase skew somehow. I know that jemalloc tends to be sensitive to time problems. > > Another interesting context to test could be single-socket > with just one core. (I might be able to do that on another > old PowerMac, booting the same media after moving the > media.) That's my primary aim32 testing platform. I have a stack of g4 laptops that I test on, and a magically working usb stick (ADATA C008 / 8GB model. For some reason it just works, I've never seen another stick actually work) > > If I understand right, the most common 32-bit powerpc > tier 2 hardware platforms may still be old PowerMac's. > They are considered supported and "mature", instead of > just "stable". See https://wiki.freebsd.org/powerpc . > However, the reality is that there are various problems > for old PowerMacs (32-bit and 64-bit, at least when > there is more than one socket present). The wiki page > does not hint at such. (I'm not sure about > single socket/multi-core PowerMacs: no access to > such.) Yes, neither I nor jhibbits have multiple socket g4 hardware at the moment, and I additionally don't have multiple socket g5 either. > > It is certainly possible for some problem to happen > that would lead to dropping the supported-status > for some or all old 32-bit PowerMacs, even as tier 2. > But that has not happened yet and I'd have no say in > such a choice. >From a kernel standpoint, I for one have no intention of dropping 32 bit support in the forseeable future. I've actually been putting more work into 32 bit than 64 bit recently in fact. -- Brandon Bergren bdragon@FreeBSD.org
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?b7297680-2f4e-4b75-9303-274f4461a0b6>