From owner-freebsd-current  Tue Mar 10 14:55:23 1998
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA21100
          for freebsd-current-outgoing; Tue, 10 Mar 1998 14:55:23 -0800 (PST)
          (envelope-from owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG)
Received: from ns1.yes.no (ns1.yes.no [195.119.24.10])
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id OAA21075
          for <current@FreeBSD.ORG>; Tue, 10 Mar 1998 14:55:15 -0800 (PST)
          (envelope-from eivind@bitbox.follo.net)
Received: from bitbox.follo.net (bitbox.follo.net [194.198.43.36])
	by ns1.yes.no (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id WAA04430;
	Tue, 10 Mar 1998 22:55:07 GMT
Received: (from eivind@localhost)
	by bitbox.follo.net (8.8.6/8.8.6) id XAA11207;
	Tue, 10 Mar 1998 23:55:06 +0100 (MET)
Message-ID: <19980310235506.04127@follo.net>
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 23:55:06 +0100
From: Eivind Eklund <eivind@yes.no>
To: ade@demon.net, Glenn Johnson <gjohnson@nola.srrc.usda.gov>
Cc: current@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: panics with SMP and NFS
References: <199803102147.PAA21916@symbion.srrc.usda.gov> <E0yCXgh-0000rq-00@gorgon.lovett.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Mailer: Mutt 0.89.1i
In-Reply-To: <E0yCXgh-0000rq-00@gorgon.lovett.com>; from Ade Lovett on Tue, Mar 10, 1998 at 04:39:54PM -0600
Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG

On Tue, Mar 10, 1998 at 04:39:54PM -0600, Ade Lovett wrote:
> Glenn Johnson writes:
> >
> >I don't know if this is an NFS or SMP problem but I get the following when I 
> >try to use NFS on an SMP system.
> >
> >	"panic: bremfree: removing a buffer when not on a queue
> 
> Looks like a {V,N}FS problem rather than SMP -- at least I've just
> seen this happen a few times on a single-cpu box - there doesn't
> seem to be any repeatability to the problem, just effectively
> random NFS hangs, then a panic and reboot.
> 
> Peeking at the code, it seems that this panic (and a bunch of other
> stuff) is only called if MAX_PERF is undefined -- sadly, no mention
> of MAX_PERF is made in any of the kernel config files (even LINT).

I'll check with John and possibly add this as a commented out option
in LINT.

However, the only thing adding MAX_PERF will do is remove a bunch of
cheap sanity checking - when something panic() when that is not
defined, it just mean you'd be getting incorrect results if MAX_PERF
had been defined.  That wouldn't really be of help.

Eivind.


To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message