From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Sep 12 21:41:29 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 865825A2 for ; Thu, 12 Sep 2013 21:41:29 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from avg@FreeBSD.org) Received: from citadel.icyb.net.ua (citadel.icyb.net.ua [212.40.38.140]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D1DFD29AB for ; Thu, 12 Sep 2013 21:41:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: from porto.starpoint.kiev.ua (porto-e.starpoint.kiev.ua [212.40.38.100]) by citadel.icyb.net.ua (8.8.8p3/ICyb-2.3exp) with ESMTP id AAA05330; Fri, 13 Sep 2013 00:41:24 +0300 (EEST) (envelope-from avg@FreeBSD.org) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]) by porto.starpoint.kiev.ua with esmtp (Exim 4.34 (FreeBSD)) id 1VKEdg-000KrT-Fm; Fri, 13 Sep 2013 00:41:24 +0300 Message-ID: <523234CC.7030004@FreeBSD.org> Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2013 00:40:28 +0300 From: Andriy Gapon User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130810 Thunderbird/17.0.8 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Konstantin Belousov Subject: Re: Possible kqueue related issue on STABLE/RC. References: <20130911171913.GG41229@kib.kiev.ua> <20130912073643.GM41229@kib.kiev.ua> <20130912184900.GD41229@kib.kiev.ua> In-Reply-To: <20130912184900.GD41229@kib.kiev.ua> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5.1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.org, Jimmy Olgeni X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2013 21:41:29 -0000 on 12/09/2013 21:49 Konstantin Belousov said the following: > On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 08:28:48PM +0200, Jimmy Olgeni wrote: >> >> On Thu, 12 Sep 2013, Konstantin Belousov wrote: >> >>> Might be, your issue is that some filesystems do not care about proper >>> locking mode for the fifos. UFS carefully disables shared locking for >>> VFIFO, but it seems ZFS is not. I can propose the following band-aid, >>> which could help you. >> >> This certainly seems to improve things. I have been running builds >> for the past couple of hours without any critical problem. > Ok, so it is ZFS indeed. I think I will commit the band-aid to head > shortly. I am not sure if my message <5231A016.7060906@FreeBSD.org> was intercepted by NSA and didn't reach you... At least I haven't seen any reaction to it. So, ZFS does not need this band-aid. If you think that it may be needed for other filesystems or is useful in general, then okay. Just in case, r254694 is not in releng/9.2 and I haven't seen any evidence that Jimmy has tested a tree that included that commit. >> I spotted a few LORs but nothing bad happened so far: >> >> http://olgeni.olgeni.com/~olgeni/dmesg-2013-09-12 > Out of curiousity, please look up the line for vm_object_terminate+0x1d8. > >> >> If it keeps working this way I hope there's still some time to fit it >> into an -RC. > > For 10.0 yes, 9.2 is sealed (hopefully). > -- Andriy Gapon