From owner-freebsd-current Tue Jul 23 3: 9:19 2002 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 522AA37B400 for ; Tue, 23 Jul 2002 03:09:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from itesec.hsc.fr (itesec.hsc.fr [192.70.106.33]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 60BE243E42 for ; Tue, 23 Jul 2002 03:09:16 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from yb@sainte-barbe.org) Received: from taz.hsc.fr (ogoun.hsc.fr [192.70.106.75]) (using TLSv1 with cipher EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA (168/168 bits)) (Client CN "ogoun.hsc.fr", Issuer "HSC CA" (verified OK)) by itesec.hsc.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8E4CE20F41 for ; Tue, 23 Jul 2002 12:09:13 +0200 (CEST) Received: by taz.hsc.fr (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 36E01F5; Tue, 23 Jul 2002 12:08:53 +0200 (CEST) Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 12:08:53 +0200 From: Yann Berthier To: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Is it just me or has -current suddenly got massively unstable? Message-ID: <20020723100853.GA433@hsc.fr> References: <20020722101211.GA442@hsc.fr> <20020723070704.7B4CB3925@overcee.wemm.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20020723070704.7B4CB3925@overcee.wemm.org> X-Organization: Herve Schauer Consultants X-Web: http://www.hsc.fr/ X-Operating-System: FreeBSD 5.0-CURRENT User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Tue, 23 Jul 2002, Peter Wemm wrote: [snip] > Thanks for the independent confirmation. Here's a workaround patch > that you might like to try: > > --- kern_thread.c 17 Jul 2002 23:43:55 -0000 1.8 > +++ kern_thread.c 22 Jul 2002 23:31:06 -0000 > @@ -198,7 +198,7 @@ > > thread_zone = uma_zcreate("THREAD", sizeof (struct thread), > thread_ctor, thread_dtor, thread_init, thread_fini, > - UMA_ALIGN_CACHE, 0); > + UMA_ALIGN_CACHE, UMA_ZONE_NOFREE); > } > > /* > > I haven't paniced yet with that change. :-) For some unknown reason, > selwakeup() is dereferencing pointers to threads that have long gone and > the backing store has been freed. The patch above is a bandaid, not a > solution. It basically prevents threads ever being freed back to the > general pool, even though everything here supposedly does not need that. > (unlike struct proc and socket, for example). Thanks a lot, patch applied, and all is going fine. Peter: I knew you would come up with a solution :) (well, feel free to call it bandaid, but it solves the problem BTW) - yann To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message