From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Jul 16 15:52:34 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 64F4D16A4CE for ; Fri, 16 Jul 2004 15:52:34 +0000 (GMT) Received: from pooker.samsco.org (pooker.samsco.org [168.103.85.57]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1A9A343D39 for ; Fri, 16 Jul 2004 15:52:34 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from scottl@freebsd.org) Received: from [192.168.0.12] (g4.samsco.home [192.168.0.12]) (authenticated bits=0) by pooker.samsco.org (8.12.11/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i6GFwDBN041828; Fri, 16 Jul 2004 09:58:14 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from scottl@freebsd.org) Message-ID: <40F7F97D.80801@freebsd.org> Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2004 09:51:25 -0600 From: Scott Long User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X Mach-O; en-US; rv:1.7) Gecko/20040514 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Willem Jan Withagen References: <0b4001c46b49$d146f6d0$471b3dd4@digiware.nl> In-Reply-To: <0b4001c46b49$d146f6d0$471b3dd4@digiware.nl> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=3.8 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.63 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on pooker.samsco.org cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: spin lock sched lock held by 0xffffff007b712250 for > 5 seconds 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: Fri, 16 Jul 2004 15:52:34 -0000 Willem Jan Withagen wrote: > After todays kernelbuild the system seem to be a lot better... > It can take quite some buildworld abuse, but still: > > spin lock sched lock held by 0xffffff007b712250 for > 5 seconds > panic: spin lock held too long > cpuid = 1; > KDB: enter: panic > > > > But I'm not shure what I could/should do now, since the KDB introduction. > Normally I'd expect to see: > db> > > But there no way to get any response. > > --WjW > Is your kernel built with both KDB and DDB? Scott