From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <58c9b7013b68f3902cb73b4baa9ef25e@plan9.ucalgary.ca>
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] more fossil woes
From: mirtchov@cpsc.ucalgary.ca
In-Reply-To: <2f8e0f32e814c7198926c7687a719d73@plan9.bell-labs.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2003 21:35:13 -0700
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 86921d0e-eacc-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025

>>	assert failed: b->nlock == 1
>>	fossil 44: suicide: sys: trap: fault read addr=0x0 pc=0x0002b6b7
>
> I believe I have just fixed this bug.  Jmk caught one and held it down for me.
> Sources are there now, binary tomorrow.

Several months ago I offered an 8 megabyte log of fossil crashing with
this problem while running in debug mode.  Could've been helpful, but I'm
glad you fixed it :)

>
>> It was the first crash in a long time, but unfortunately I had no way of
>> finding out who/what had caused it, because Plan 9 does not allow me to
>> examine process' activity based on utilization of a particular resource.
>
> I don't understand what you mean here.  What query would you have
> asked the system to help isolate the problem?

Something similar to lunix' "top" command -- what process is taking
the most out of a particular resource.  It can be done currently for
things like memory usage and cputime, but it's a bit difficult when I
want to know which process used the most out of the cpu in the last
second.  Things like interrupts and most of what stats(8) displays are
good to link with process ids too.

(Just realized that I could possibly deduce the most active process
from its scheduling priority. I need to look into that.)

>> (Interestingly enough, when I suggested such "features" are added to the
>> system there was an outrage, especially from people who never use Plan 9,
>> telling me I'm just polluting the beautiful system :)...
>
> And I definitely don't understand what you mean here.
> I have all sorts of trippy acid to look at who is using
> what.  If you identified an interesting set of questions
> that could be answered by exporting some kernel information
> in a new format, I would be all ears.

There are a certain type of people who like Plan 9 for what (they
think) it stands for (being the anti-lunix) and not for what it is (a
decent OS which is comfortable to work with, if a bit spartan).

This comment was directed to them "don't want any features in Plan 9;
frame the source and put it on the wall" people :)

andrey