From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Jul 19 19:16:31 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CFD0716A4CE; Mon, 19 Jul 2004 19:16:31 +0000 (GMT) Received: from freebee.digiware.nl (dsl390.iae.nl [212.61.63.138]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 348B143D2F; Mon, 19 Jul 2004 19:16:31 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from wjw@withagen.nl) Received: from dual (dual [212.61.27.71]) by freebee.digiware.nl (8.12.10/8.12.10) with SMTP id i6JJEesD086382; Mon, 19 Jul 2004 21:14:40 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from wjw@withagen.nl) Message-ID: <143b01c46dc3$bc7f0db0$471b3dd4@digiware.nl> From: "Willem Jan Withagen" To: "John Baldwin" , References: <200406301130.43121.jhb@FreeBSD.org> Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2004 21:08:11 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1409 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1409 cc: Robert Watson Subject: Re: spin lock sched lock held by 0xffffff007b712250 for > 5 seconds X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2004 19:16:31 -0000 From: "John Baldwin" > On Friday 16 July 2004 12:21 pm, Robert Watson wrote: > > On Fri, 16 Jul 2004, Willem Jan Withagen wrote: > > > After todays kernelbuild the system seem to be a lot better... > > > It can take quite some buildworld abuse, but still: > > > > > > spin lock sched lock held by 0xffffff007b712250 for > 5 seconds > > > panic: spin lock held too long > > > cpuid = 1; > > > KDB: enter: panic > > > > > > But I'm not shure what I could/should do now, since the KDB > > > introduction. Normally I'd expect to see: db> > > > > We have trouble entering the debugger when in a critical section/and or > > have sched_lock held -- I think this is because we try to halt the other > > CPUs and that gets nastily stuck in some form. We need to fix this. > > > > This could well be a symptom of some of the other hangs we've been seeing, > > and I've seen similar things on my test box with preemption enabled. > > You can hack sys/i386/include/smptests.h (or smptest.h, whichever it is) and > comment out CPUSTOP_ONDDBREAK as a hack. I did that recently for some > debugging. This is i386 only ..... I'm running in 84bit mode. But in all this is a nice suggestion, to see if the same thing will cause so many crashes when running in native 32bit-i386 mode. If it does the same there, would that mean a hardware problem?? Or is i386 much more stable? --WjW