Re: [9fans] 9vx patches [was: 9vx bootimage build instructions?]

[EBo <ebo@sandien.com>]

 On Thu, 26 May 2011 14:58:11 -0400, erik quanstrom wrote:
>>  The system still crashes with very large numbers of procs (I think
>> it
>>  is overrunning the static definition of libvx32/proc.c vxproc
>>  *procs[VXPROCSMAX]), but for now spawning 64 tasks is ok for
>>  development, but all the tests are shooting for 512.  It would be
>> nice
>>  to get all the systems running consistently.  Any suggestions are
>>  greatly appreciated.
>
> ...
>
> main.c:318: 	conf.nproc = 100 + ((conf.npage*BY2PG)/MB)*5;
> main.c:319: 	if(conf.nproc > 2000)
> main.c:320: 		conf.nproc = 2000;

 The problem here is that I had to override this test to pass in a
 limit.  On plan9 (running in kvm) it took over 3000 procs to run the 512
 tasks, and I set the memsize to 2047 (it crashed with 2048).

 The behavior is interesting.  It is moroting along and either aborts
 with a "panic: sigsegv on cpu5", a "panic: mmap address space 0", or it
 goes off into never never land (if I look at the CPU usage at this time
 it is essentially 0 where throwing 64 tasks at it causes one of the
 cores to go full tilt).

> i'd suspect that the real problem is you're not giving 9vx enough
> kernel memory.  try setting kernelpercent to something largeish.

 I've played around with setting it from 70 to 100.

> but of course, i'm just guessing.  it would be helpful to have some
> debugging output.

 I'll see what I can get you after I put out the immediate fires.
 Thanks for the suggestions.

   EBo --