From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Jun 9 15:26:24 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 732AD16A4CE for ; Wed, 9 Jun 2004 15:26:24 +0000 (GMT) Received: from mail5.speakeasy.net (mail5.speakeasy.net [216.254.0.205]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5498A43D45 for ; Wed, 9 Jun 2004 15:26:24 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from jhb@FreeBSD.org) Received: (qmail 23721 invoked from network); 9 Jun 2004 15:26:24 -0000 Received: from dsl027-160-063.atl1.dsl.speakeasy.net (HELO server.baldwin.cx) ([216.27.160.63]) (envelope-sender ) encrypted SMTP for ; 9 Jun 2004 15:26:23 -0000 Received: from 10.50.41.233 (gw1.twc.weather.com [216.133.140.1]) by server.baldwin.cx (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i59FQJxf018672; Wed, 9 Jun 2004 11:26:19 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from jhb@FreeBSD.org) From: John Baldwin To: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org Date: Wed, 9 Jun 2004 11:27:10 -0400 User-Agent: KMail/1.6 References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200406091127.10019.jhb@FreeBSD.org> X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on server.baldwin.cx cc: Ian FREISLICH Subject: Re: panic: spin lock held too long (reasonable load) 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, 09 Jun 2004 15:26:24 -0000 On Wednesday 09 June 2004 11:04 am, Ian FREISLICH wrote: > > On Wednesday 09 June 2004 09:25 am, Ian FREISLICH wrote: > > > Hi > > > > > > I got this about an hour ago, maybe 10 minutes into a 'make world > > > -j8' on my SMP system. I'll reproduce the panic and drop into the > > > debugger if possible if someone is willing to tell me what information > > > appart from this backtrace will be helpful. > > > > Unfortunately this is a known deadlock that can happen with swapping that > > there isn't an easy fix for. If you want a quick hack, try commenting > > out the 'wakeup(&proc0)' line in setrunnable(). It might take a bit > > longer for the kernel to swap processes back in but should avoid the > > deadlock. > > You mean like this? Yes. Appropriate comment, too. :-P > diff -u -d -r1.249 kern_synch.c > --- kern_synch.c 7 Jun 2004 09:35:00 -0000 1.249 > +++ kern_synch.c 9 Jun 2004 15:03:09 -0000 > @@ -402,7 +402,14 @@ > if ((p->p_sflag & PS_INMEM) == 0) { > if ((p->p_sflag & PS_SWAPPINGIN) == 0) { > p->p_sflag |= PS_SWAPINREQ; > - wakeup(&proc0); > + /* > + * XXX Nasty, Tricksy hack!!!! > + * Perhaps avoid a deadlock at the expense of swap > + * performance. > + */ > + /* > + * wakeup(&proc0); > + */ > } > } else > sched_wakeup(td); > > Ian > > -- > Ian Freislich > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" -- John Baldwin <>< http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/ "Power Users Use the Power to Serve" = http://www.FreeBSD.org