From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Apr 14 08:42:13 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 1164716A4D0 for ; Wed, 14 Apr 2004 08:42:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail6.speakeasy.net (mail6.speakeasy.net [216.254.0.206]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D1A3D43D60 for ; Wed, 14 Apr 2004 08:42:12 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jhb@FreeBSD.org) Received: (qmail 16651 invoked from network); 14 Apr 2004 15:42:08 -0000 Received: from dsl027-160-063.atl1.dsl.speakeasy.net (HELO server.baldwin.cx) ([216.27.160.63]) (envelope-sender ) encrypted SMTP for ; 14 Apr 2004 15:42:08 -0000 Received: from 10.50.40.205 (gw1.twc.weather.com [216.133.140.1]) by server.baldwin.cx (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i3EFfYdw001084; Wed, 14 Apr 2004 11:41:42 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from jhb@FreeBSD.org) From: John Baldwin To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2004 11:38:57 -0400 User-Agent: KMail/1.6 References: <20040408154004.GA22500@dhcp01.pn.xcllnt.net> <20040408185949.GA22954@dhcp01.pn.xcllnt.net> In-Reply-To: <20040408185949.GA22954@dhcp01.pn.xcllnt.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200404121138.57950.jhb@FreeBSD.org> X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on server.baldwin.cx cc: Robert Watson cc: current@freebsd.org cc: Marcel Moolenaar Subject: Re: panic on one cpu leaves others running... 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: Wed, 14 Apr 2004 15:42:13 -0000 On Thursday 08 April 2004 02:59 pm, Marcel Moolenaar wrote: > On Thu, Apr 08, 2004 at 11:51:24AM -0400, Robert Watson wrote: > > > > Presumably in large part because I'm in code that doesn't require > > > > Giant, so there are no lock conflicts. > > > > > > I don't think that's the case. It think we're just not stopping the > > > CPUs or keep them stopped. > > > > I agree with that interpretation -- I was suggesting that the reason this > > problem might not be noticed is that a lot of our code paths require > > Giant, and it's only when you panic in code without Giant that > > Ah, ok. The thing that strikes me as odd, if not wrong, is that we > use PCPU(CPUID) to update the stopped_cpus mask, while we should be > using PCPU(CPUMASK) for that. See attached patch (untested). > > Am I off-base here? Yes. btsl takes a bit number, not a bitmask. -- John Baldwin <>< http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/ "Power Users Use the Power to Serve" = http://www.FreeBSD.org