From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Wed May 3 18:55:17 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E0BA416A401 for ; Wed, 3 May 2006 18:55:17 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kris@obsecurity.org) Received: from elvis.mu.org (elvis.mu.org [192.203.228.196]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 95B0343D46 for ; Wed, 3 May 2006 18:55:17 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from kris@obsecurity.org) Received: from obsecurity.dyndns.org (elvis.mu.org [192.203.228.196]) by elvis.mu.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7AD051A4E04; Wed, 3 May 2006 11:55:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: by obsecurity.dyndns.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id E7E0451742; Wed, 3 May 2006 14:55:16 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 3 May 2006 14:55:16 -0400 From: Kris Kennaway To: "No@SPAM@mgEDV.net" Message-ID: <20060503185516.GA31515@xor.obsecurity.org> References: <20060502201054.GA93912@xor.obsecurity.org> <007f01c66e97$b44bc760$dededede@avalon.lan> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="BXVAT5kNtrzKuDFl" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <007f01c66e97$b44bc760$dededede@avalon.lan> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: 6.1-RC2: strange kernel panic! X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 03 May 2006 18:55:18 -0000 --BXVAT5kNtrzKuDFl Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, May 03, 2006 at 11:55:26AM +0200, No@SPAM@mgEDV.net wrote: > =20 > > Don't you think you should test it instead of guessing? :-) I suggested > > it because it *is* a possibility (that is why I have it in my kernel). > yes, but doesn't it make sense to find memory consuming things > before adding more? > btw. how can we check for such things? >=20 > > Are you sure you are using swap backing and not malloc? > nope, i'm not sure if it was that, but -M was passed to mdmfs, > so malloc(9) was used. we changed the code to swap-based, let's > see if that fixes our problem. Since you were using malloc backing that is what used up all your kernel memory. Increasing memory per my suggestion would have fixed it. Chances are you don't want to use malloc backing anyway though, because it's slower (unless you're swapping). Kris --BXVAT5kNtrzKuDFl Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFEWPyUWry0BWjoQKURAopXAJ95jKU1+8E+8Du1D+wnBAxGh0mvJwCg53qY JRZYzBuEsNXtlKBxv9cHNbc= =ySJl -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --BXVAT5kNtrzKuDFl--