Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2017 18:57:50 -0500 From: Jonathan Looney <jonlooney@gmail.com> To: hiren panchasara <hiren@strugglingcoder.info> Cc: "Jonathan T. Looney" <jtl@freebsd.org>, src-committers@freebsd.org, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, svn-src-head@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r314216 - head/sys/x86/x86 Message-ID: <CADrOrmurLLVTJaWYdksaO1Qx5mHLZjaQSveZA0UhpDCWvVuGeg@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20170224201922.GA18343@strugglingcoder.info> References: <201702241856.v1OIu150004903@repo.freebsd.org> <20170224201922.GA18343@strugglingcoder.info>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 3:19 PM, hiren panchasara < hiren@strugglingcoder.info> wrote: > On 02/24/17 at 06:56P, Jonathan T. Looney wrote: > > Author: jtl > > Date: Fri Feb 24 18:56:00 2017 > > New Revision: 314216 > > URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/314216 > > > > Log: > > We have seen several cases recently where we appear to get a > double-fault: > > We have an original panic. Then, instead of writing the core to the > dump > > device, the kernel has a second panic: "smp_targeted_tlb_shootdown: > > interrupts disabled". This change is an attempt to fix that second > panic. > > > > When the other CPUs are stopped, we can't notify them of the TLB > shootdown, > > so we skip that operation. However, when the CPUs come back up, we > > invalidate the TLB to ensure they correctly observe any changes to the > > page mappings. > > > > Reviewed by: kib > > Sponsored by: Netflix > > Differential Revision: https://reviews.freebsd.org/D9786 > > Can this be MFCd to 11? > It can be. I didn't propose it because I have only seen the problem on -CURRENT. But, I see no obstacle to MFCing to stable/11, if you want to see it there. Jonathan
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CADrOrmurLLVTJaWYdksaO1Qx5mHLZjaQSveZA0UhpDCWvVuGeg>