From owner-freebsd-hackers Thu Feb 25 2:11:26 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from apollo.backplane.com (apollo.backplane.com [209.157.86.2]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9784514CF6 for ; Thu, 25 Feb 1999 02:09:41 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from dillon@apollo.backplane.com) Received: (from dillon@localhost) by apollo.backplane.com (8.9.3/8.9.1) id CAA02488; Thu, 25 Feb 1999 02:09:24 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from dillon) Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 02:09:24 -0800 (PST) From: Matthew Dillon Message-Id: <199902251009.CAA02488@apollo.backplane.com> To: Luoqi Chen , dfr@nlsystems.com, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG, mjacob@feral.com Subject: Re: Panic in FFS/4.0 as of yesterday - update References: <199902231444.JAA02311@lor.watermarkgroup.com> <199902231848.KAA51270@apollo.backplane.com> <199902250916.BAA02250@apollo.backplane.com> Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Ah. It looks like the numfreebuffers accounting is messed up as well. I had a lockup with processes sitting in 'newbuf' after I added a hard check/sleep based on 'numfreebuffers'. test2:/home/dillon> sysctl -a | fgrep buffers vfs.numdirtybuffers: 149 vfs.lodirtybuffers: 95 vfs.hidirtybuffers: 191 vfs.numfreebuffers: 16715 <----- actually, there were none vfs.lofreebuffers: 81 vfs.hifreebuffers: 162 That could account for quite a bit, actually. It means getblk() wouldn't block when it should. -Matt To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message