search for: locktest

...disk_lease_dir = "/opt/mln/sanlock" host_id = 51 ( host_id is 52 on H2 ) cat /etc/libvirt/qemu.conf | grep sanlock lock_manager = "sanlock" A virtual machine is created ( with virsh create ) on H1 using the following xml: <domain type='kvm' > <name>rhel1.locktest</name> <memory>524288</memory> <vcpu></vcpu> <os> <type arch='x86_64' >hvm</type> <boot dev='hd'/> </os> <features> <acpi/> <apic/> <pae/> </features> <clock offset='utc'/> <on...

Anyone who has NFS, could you test: http://dovecot.org/tmp/locktest.c 1. Compile: gcc locktest.c -o locktest -Wall -g 2. Start in server 1: ./locktest temp1 3. Start in server 2: ./locktest temp2 4. Server 1 might log "unlink() failed" error after starting the second locktest, ignore that. It starts writing something like: 1 successes 12 successes link...

...lude/asm/simple_spinlock.h > create mode 100644 arch/powerpc/include/asm/simple_spinlock_types.h > This patch looks OK to me. I had run some microbenchmark on powerpc system with or w/o the patch. On a 2-socket 160-thread SMT4 POWER9 system (not virtualized): 5.8.0-rc4 ========= Running locktest with spinlock [runtime = 10s, load = 1] Threads = 160, Min/Mean/Max = 77,665/90,153/106,895 Threads = 160, Total Rate = 1,441,759 op/s; Percpu Rate = 9,011 op/s Running locktest with rwlock [runtime = 10s, r% = 50%, load = 1] Threads = 160, Min/Mean/Max = 47,879/53,807/63,689 Threads = 160, Total...

...sing insmod and run the code in the newly inserted module, I got memory access violation as follows: BUG: unable to handle kernel NULL pointer dereference at (null) IP: [< (null)>] (null) PGD 18d62f3067 PUD 18d476f067 PMD 0 Oops: 0010 [#1] SMP Modules linked in: locktest(OE) ebtable_nat ebtables xt_CHECKSUM iptable_mangle bridge autofs4 8021q garp stp llc ipt_REJECT nf_conntrack_ipv4 nf_defrag_ipv4 iptable_filter ip_tables ip6t_REJECT nf_conntrack_ipv6 nf_defrag_ipv6 xt_state nf_conntrack ip6table_filter ip6_tables ipv6 vhost_net macvtap macvlan vhost tun uinpu...

...sing insmod and run the code in the newly inserted module, I got memory access violation as follows: BUG: unable to handle kernel NULL pointer dereference at (null) IP: [< (null)>] (null) PGD 18d62f3067 PUD 18d476f067 PMD 0 Oops: 0010 [#1] SMP Modules linked in: locktest(OE) ebtable_nat ebtables xt_CHECKSUM iptable_mangle bridge autofs4 8021q garp stp llc ipt_REJECT nf_conntrack_ipv4 nf_defrag_ipv4 iptable_filter ip_tables ip6t_REJECT nf_conntrack_ipv6 nf_defrag_ipv6 xt_state nf_conntrack ip6table_filter ip6_tables ipv6 vhost_net macvtap macvlan vhost tun uinpu...

..._spinlock_types.h >> > This patch looks OK to me. Thanks for reviewing and testing. > I had run some microbenchmark on powerpc system with or w/o the patch. > > On a 2-socket 160-thread SMT4 POWER9 system (not virtualized): > > 5.8.0-rc4 > ========= > > Running locktest with spinlock [runtime = 10s, load = 1] > Threads = 160, Min/Mean/Max = 77,665/90,153/106,895 > Threads = 160, Total Rate = 1,441,759 op/s; Percpu Rate = 9,011 op/s > > Running locktest with rwlock [runtime = 10s, r% = 50%, load = 1] > Threads = 160, Min/Mean/Max = 47,879/53,807/63,...

..._spinlock_types.h >> > This patch looks OK to me. Thanks for reviewing and testing. > I had run some microbenchmark on powerpc system with or w/o the patch. > > On a 2-socket 160-thread SMT4 POWER9 system (not virtualized): > > 5.8.0-rc4 > ========= > > Running locktest with spinlock [runtime = 10s, load = 1] > Threads = 160, Min/Mean/Max = 77,665/90,153/106,895 > Threads = 160, Total Rate = 1,441,759 op/s; Percpu Rate = 9,011 op/s > > Running locktest with rwlock [runtime = 10s, r% = 50%, load = 1] > Threads = 160, Min/Mean/Max = 47,879/53,807/63,...

v3 is updated to use __pv_queued_spin_unlock, noticed by Waiman (thank you). Thanks, Nick Nicholas Piggin (6): powerpc/powernv: must include hvcall.h to get PAPR defines powerpc/pseries: move some PAPR paravirt functions to their own file powerpc: move spinlock implementation to simple_spinlock powerpc/64s: implement queued spinlocks and rwlocks powerpc/pseries: implement paravirt

v3 is updated to use __pv_queued_spin_unlock, noticed by Waiman (thank you). Thanks, Nick Nicholas Piggin (6): powerpc/powernv: must include hvcall.h to get PAPR defines powerpc/pseries: move some PAPR paravirt functions to their own file powerpc: move spinlock implementation to simple_spinlock powerpc/64s: implement queued spinlocks and rwlocks powerpc/pseries: implement paravirt

...obably true on network filesystems. When I run this tiny program on 2 hosts in the same directory on samba share (with 'oplocks = no' in smb.conf): --<cut>-- #include <fcntl.h> #include <stdio.h> #include <unistd.h> // unlink main () { const char * path = "locktest.lck"; while (1) { int f = open (path, O_WRONLY | O_CREAT | O_EXCL); if (f > 0) { close (f); if (unlink (path) < 0) { perror ("unlink"); exit (1); } } } return 0; } --<cut>-- it fails quickly with: unlink: Text file bus...

On 10/24/2014 04:54 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 02:10:38PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote: > >> Since enabling paravirt spinlock will disable unlock function inlining, >> a jump label can be added to the unlock function without adding patch >> sites all over the kernel. > But you don't have to. My patches allowed for the inline to remain, > again

On 10/24/2014 04:54 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 02:10:38PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote: > >> Since enabling paravirt spinlock will disable unlock function inlining, >> a jump label can be added to the unlock function without adding patch >> sites all over the kernel. > But you don't have to. My patches allowed for the inline to remain, > again

...t IS locked. But: > yes, Provided you use the right attribute to search on ;-) > Something like this will give you if/when the account was locked out: > ldbsearch -H /var/lib/samba/private/sam.ldb -b 'dc=samdom,dc=example,dc=com' -s sub '(&(objectClass=user)(samaccountname=locktest)(lockoutTime>=0))' lockoutTime | grep 'lockoutTime' | awk '{print $NF}' > See here: https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/openspecs/windows_protocols/ms-adls/eb73820d-907a-49a5-a6f3-1847f86629b4 following the link here the code: user_is_locked () { # We folow spec,...

.../tdbbackup bin/make_printerdef PROGS2 = bin/smbpasswd bin/make_smbcodepage bin/rpcclient bin/make_unicodemap bin/smbcacls MPROGS = LPROGS = $(WINBIND_PAM_PROGS) $(WINBIND_LPROGS) PROGS = $(PROGS1) $(PROGS2) $(MPROGS) bin/nmblookup TORTURE_PROGS = bin/smbtorture bin/msgtest bin/masktest bin/locktest bin/locktest2 SHLIBS = libsmbclient SCRIPTS = $(srcdir)/script/smbtar QUOTAOBJS=smbd/noquotas.o ###################################################################### # object file lists ###################################################################### TDBBASE_OBJ = tdb/tdb.o tdb/spinlock...

.../tdbbackup bin/make_printerdef PROGS2 = bin/smbpasswd bin/make_smbcodepage bin/rpcclient bin/make_unicodemap bin/smbcacls MPROGS = LPROGS = $(WINBIND_PAM_PROGS) $(WINBIND_LPROGS) PROGS = $(PROGS1) $(PROGS2) $(MPROGS) bin/nmblookup TORTURE_PROGS = bin/smbtorture bin/msgtest bin/masktest bin/locktest bin/locktest2 SHLIBS = libsmbclient SCRIPTS = $(srcdir)/script/smbtar QUOTAOBJS=smbd/noquotas.o ###################################################################### # object file lists ###################################################################### TDBBASE_OBJ = tdb/tdb.o tdb/spinlock...

Is dovecot still considered unreliable when combined with NFS? Is this true for mbox only, or Maildir as well? If dovecot Is still considered unreliable with NFS, how about having a dovecot mode that would chain into procmail for delivery, so that dovecot doesn't (necessarily) have to reinvent that wheel? Thanks!

I need to do some testing, but before to hit by head on a known wall, i ask here. My AD domain get used (via PAM/Winbind) to give access to some other dervice, most notably here dovecot. When password expire (or users change it) the MUA try the old password some times, then ask for a new password; users cleraly get scared, press randomly 'OK' or 'Cancel', but if they press 2-3

Mandi! Rowland penny via samba In chel di` si favelave... > yes, Provided you use the right attribute to search on ;-) Ah! ;-) Just i'm here, i test three condition in account flags, eg: UAC=$(ldbsearch ${LDB_OPTS} -b "${BASEDN}" "(&(objectClass=user)(sAMAccountName=$1))" userAccountControl | grep "^userAccountControl: " | cut -d ' ' -f 2-)

...: > >> yes, Provided you use the right attribute to search on ;-) >> Something like this will give you if/when the account was locked out: >> ldbsearch -H /var/lib/samba/private/sam.ldb -b 'dc=samdom,dc=example,dc=com' -s sub '(&(objectClass=user)(samaccountname=locktest)(lockoutTime>=0))' lockoutTime | grep 'lockoutTime' | awk '{print $NF}' >> See here: https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/openspecs/windows_protocols/ms-adls/eb73820d-907a-49a5-a6f3-1847f86629b4 > following the link here the code: > > user_is_locked () { > &gt...

...? > > > Thanks. > yes, Provided you use the right attribute to search on ;-) Something like this will give you if/when the account was locked out: ldbsearch -H /var/lib/samba/private/sam.ldb -b 'dc=samdom,dc=example,dc=com' -s sub '(&(objectClass=user)(samaccountname=locktest)(lockoutTime>=0))' lockoutTime | grep 'lockoutTime' | awk '{print $NF}' See here: https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/openspecs/windows_protocols/ms-adls/eb73820d-907a-49a5-a6f3-1847f86629b4 Rowland