From owner-freebsd-threads@FreeBSD.ORG  Sun Nov 16 11:30:21 2003
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-threads@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-threads@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id C4D4416A4CE; Sun, 16 Nov 2003 11:30:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.pcnet.com (mail.pcnet.com [204.213.232.4])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id EB98343FB1; Sun, 16 Nov 2003 11:30:20 -0800 (PST)
	(envelope-from eischen@vigrid.com)
Received: from mail.pcnet.com (mail.pcnet.com [204.213.232.4])
	by mail.pcnet.com (8.12.10/8.12.1) with ESMTP id hAGJUK1G003660;
	Sun, 16 Nov 2003 14:30:20 -0500 (EST)
Date: Sun, 16 Nov 2003 14:30:20 -0500 (EST)
From: Daniel Eischen <eischen@vigrid.com>
X-Sender: eischen@pcnet5.pcnet.com
To: Marcel Moolenaar <marcel@xcllnt.net>
In-Reply-To: <20031116182219.GB60377@dhcp01.pn.xcllnt.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.10.10311161414290.29933-100000@pcnet5.pcnet.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
cc: threads@freebsd.org
cc: davidxu@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: KSE/ia64 broken
X-BeenThere: freebsd-threads@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Threading on FreeBSD <freebsd-threads.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-threads>,
	<mailto:freebsd-threads-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-threads>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-threads@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-threads-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-threads>,
	<mailto:freebsd-threads-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 16 Nov 2003 19:30:21 -0000

On Sun, 16 Nov 2003, Marcel Moolenaar wrote:

> On Sun, Nov 16, 2003 at 12:18:33PM -0500, Daniel Eischen wrote:
> > 
> > Are you sure there's not an ia64 kernel bug or ia64 context
> > restoring bug?
> 
> There's nothing pointing in that direction yet. I keep thinking
> that the case is related to having TP per thread on ia64, while
> it's per KSE on i386.

If you noop the spinlock/spinunlock, the problem still
occurs.

> > The critical region may be the malloc spinlock being held
> > and the reason it blocked perhaps due to a page fault.  Is
> > it possible that the blocked context is incorrectly marked,
> > or that it is just not being resumed properly?
> 
> The likelylood that it's incorrectly marked is larger than
> the likelyhood that it's improperly resumed.

What should I be looking at, [um]c_flags?

  $ simple
  Found completed thread 6000000000014000, uc_flags 0x0, mc_flags 0x8, name initial thread
  Switching out thread 6000000000014000, state 0
  Threads in waiting queue:
  Found completed thread 6000000000014000, uc_flags 0x0, mc_flags 0x3, name initial thread
  Switching out thread 6000000000014000, state 0
  Threads in waiting queue:
  Found completed thread 6000000000014000, uc_flags 0x0, mc_flags 0x3, name initial thread
  Switching out thread 6000000000014000, state 0
  Threads in waiting queue:
  Found completed thread 6000000000014000, uc_flags 0x0, mc_flags 0x3, name initial thread
  Switching out thread 6000000000014000, state 0
  Threads in waiting queue:
   ...

-- 
Dan Eischen