Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 18:32:01 +0100 From: Willem Jan Withagen <wjw@digiware.nl> To: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> Cc: Alan Cox <alc@freebsd.org>, freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: panic on vm_page_cache_transfer: object 0xfffffff0035508000's type is not compatible with cache pages Message-ID: <4D80F411.3040108@digiware.nl> In-Reply-To: <201103080915.29284.jhb@freebsd.org> References: <4D760AEC.7050604@digiware.nl> <201103080915.29284.jhb@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 2011-03-08 15:15, John Baldwin wrote: > On Tuesday, March 08, 2011 5:54:36 am Willem Jan Withagen wrote: >> System: >> >> FreeBSD zfs.digiware.nl 8.2-STABLE FreeBSD 8.2-STABLE #1: Sat Feb 26 >> 06:28:43 CET 2011 >> root@zfs.digiware.nl:/usr/obj/usr/src/src8/src/sys/ZFS amd64 >> >> Don't have a serial console, so I wrote down the traceback. >> But my guess is that that is not enough, however I needed the system so >> I rebooted. >> >> tb: >> vm_object_split at .... +0x125 >> vm_space_fork at .... +0x3f7 >> fork1 at .... +0x6a9 >> fork at .... +0xee >> syscall_entr at .... +1c >> syscall at .... +4c >> >> rip = 0x8006bc39c >> rsp = 0x7fffffffe9d8 >> rbp = 0x800a04470 >> >> It looks a lot like what I find on >> http://people.freebsd.org/~pho/stress/log/kostik079.html >> >> But my system is amd64, with 8Gb RAM and is fully ZFS based >> with swap on 2 gpt freebsd-swap partitions. >> >> System crashed last night around 1:30, which is when a few large rsync >> backups are coming in. >> >> Would I be able to call doadump to obtain something usefull afterward >> (provided I have savecore set?) > > Hmm, judging from the info at the URL above, I'm not sure what to make of this > assertion. In vm_object_split(), the 'new_object' is always OBJT_DEFAULT, so > it will always fail that half of the assertion. In fact, this is the only > place that vm_page_cache_transfer() is called, so 'new_object->type == > OBJT_SWAP' is pretty much guaranteed to almost never be true. > > I guess it is assuming that swap_pager_copy() would have always converted > 'new_object' to OBJT_SWAP if it had any cache pages? Perhaps that is a bogus > assumption if 'orig_object' only has cache pages and no currently-swapped out > pages (or if the swapped out pages are not in the range of the new object)? > > I've cc'd Alan to see if he has any ideas. Well, given enough time it does return. Found my server at the debug prompt again. So suggestion are still welcome. Thanx, --WjW
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4D80F411.3040108>