From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Sep 24 14:32:35 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 574E716A4CE; Fri, 24 Sep 2004 14:32:35 +0000 (GMT) Received: from dan.emsphone.com (dan.emsphone.com [199.67.51.101]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C9AD43D48; Fri, 24 Sep 2004 14:32:35 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from dan@dan.emsphone.com) Received: (from dan@localhost) by dan.emsphone.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) id i8OEWUgW063310; Fri, 24 Sep 2004 09:32:30 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from dan) Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 09:32:30 -0500 From: Dan Nelson To: Pawel Jakub Dawidek Message-ID: <20040924143224.GG47816@dan.emsphone.com> References: <7m7jqjhojv.wl@black.imgsrc.co.jp> <20040924122508.GG9550@darkness.comp.waw.pl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040924122508.GG9550@darkness.comp.waw.pl> X-OS: FreeBSD 5.3-BETA4 X-message-flag: Outlook Error User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6i cc: Jun Kuriyama cc: Current Subject: Re: panic: swap_pager_isswapped: failed to locate all swap meta blocks 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, 24 Sep 2004 14:32:35 -0000 In the last episode (Sep 24), Pawel Jakub Dawidek said: > On Fri, Sep 24, 2004 at 08:52:20PM +0900, Jun Kuriyama wrote: > +> This is current as of 2004.09.23.23.00.00+00 (when I hit "shutdown -r > +> now"). > +> > +> ----- > +> Shutting down local daemons:. > +> Writing entropy file:. > +> panic: swap_pager_isswapped: failed to locate all swap meta blocks > +> > +> I have a core if you want. > > This is indirectly caused by me. I added 'stop' method to rc.d/swap1 script > and now swapoff(8) is done on every shutdown(8) run. > > Will it be possible to fix it or should I made this optional? Considering that the system is going down anyway, why bother? It's sort of like requiring that programs free() all their memory before calling exit(); nice to do for debugging purposes but usually just slows you down. I can also think of cases where you may still have processes hanging around whose swapped-out VM size is greater than physical RAM. Having said that, it's still no excuse for a panic :) -- Dan Nelson dnelson@allantgroup.com