Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2003 14:57:25 -0700 (PDT) From: Matthew Jacob <mjacob@feral.com> To: Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> Cc: current@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Sleeping on "isp_mboxwaiting" with the followingnon-sleepablelocks held: Message-ID: <20031021145409.X5295@beppo> In-Reply-To: <20031021215056.GA67499@rot13.obsecurity.org> References: <20031021160559.GA65882@rot13.obsecurity.org> <20031021215056.GA67499@rot13.obsecurity.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> On Tue, Oct 21, 2003 at 02:30:21PM -0700, Matthew Jacob wrote: > > So? How about some details and context? > > Um, what more "details and context" do you need? I provided the log > of the system activity (specifically, media errors and swap read > failure) leading up to the panic, and the ddb backtrace. I, and all device driver writers, typically need to know: a) software version- it seemed to be post 5.0, but a window of date is always helpful? b) alpha, but what attached hardware? c) system state. It *appears* that you were booting from the messages, but stating so would be helpful. > > I thought was told that being able to use locks in HBAs is fine. I had > > them on for a while, and then had them off. I turned them on again over > > a month ago. I'm somewhat surprised to see that a problem shows up now. > > This was apparently triggered by the disk failure, which is not a > commonly exercised code path. Yes. After a bit more thought I now see why. A check condition will force a renegotiation. Too bad this will now be a polled operation. > > *I* do the right thing with locks, IMO. I hold them in my module when I > > enter and release them if/when I leave. Seeing a lock held by some > > random caller causing me to blow up to me seems to be a hole in the > > architecture, but I'd be the first to admit that I hardly am up to date > > on what the rules of the road are now so such an opinion is > > ill-informed. > > > > Comment out ISP_SMPLOCK in isp_freebsd.h. If the problem goes away, > > we'll make the change back again. > > I'll do what I can. > That's okay. PHK pointed out why he's now forced the issue, so I've accommodated it. > > -matt > > > > p.s.: you have *way* more issues here than locking- you've a bad disk. > > I know, but the system shouldn't blow up with a lock assertion in this > failure mode. > > > Anyway, isn't alpha desupported? > > No. > Hmm- I thought the tenor of a recent thread was this. -matt
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20031021145409.X5295>