Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Mon, 30 Jun 2014 10:40:02 -0400
From:      Chris Ross <cross+freebsd@distal.com>
To:        freebsd-sparc64@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: FreeBSD 10-STABLE/sparc64 panic
Message-ID:  <AF5EA0E6-860B-47DF-AC5E-6A45317C6092@distal.com>
In-Reply-To: <7DD7D2DC-A265-40D6-9995-16ABAF79C1FB@distal.com>
References:  <20140518083413.GK24043@gradx.cs.jhu.edu> <751F7778-95CE-40FC-857F-222FB37737C0@distal.com> <20140518235853.GM24043@gradx.cs.jhu.edu> <20140519145222.GN24043@gradx.cs.jhu.edu> <A092DFEB-D5CF-473E-88BD-81B005C26C57@distal.com> <20140519193529.GO24043@gradx.cs.jhu.edu> <20140519205047.GP24043@gradx.cs.jhu.edu> <CA75738D-066D-4EDC-9018-89936EE861C6@distal.com> <AB5649B5-BBFB-4284-9CFF-4784D28A18F3@distal.com> <A9D37635-CA61-401B-BEAE-14C4F370BFD6@distal.com> <BC35853D-DA5E-4799-947C-4C64A0BC7D36@distal.com> <D9350E94-1F01-4FFD-A51E-AD8761F5C9CF@distal.com> <E48E7175-310B-4449-B3E1-2058F9E681D0@distal.com> <323A3936-DE55-459A-B8AA-CFF463922F22@distal.com> <7DD7D2DC-A265-40D6-9995-16ABAF79C1FB@distal.com>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
tl;dr : I=92ve finished my testing and have a result, but see other =
things I
don=92t understand.  Could use more help.

On Jun 29, 2014, at 22:46, Chris Ross <cross+freebsd@distal.com> wrote:
> On Jun 20, 2014, at 23:44 , Chris Ross <cross+freebsd@distal.com> =
wrote:
>> On Jun 16, 2014, at 14:46 , Chris Ross <cross+freebsd@distal.com> =
wrote:
>>> On Jun 9, 2014, at 16:18, Chris Ross <cross+freebsd@distal.com> =
wrote:
>>>> On Jun 9, 2014, at 14:13, Chris Ross <cross+freebsd@distal.com> =
wrote:
>>>>=20
>>>> Oh well.  That was learned quickly.  r263478 booted once, but a =
second
>>>> attempt caused the multiple-boots-before-getting-to-multiuser.  So, =
moving
>>>> right along, I=92ll try r263401 in the more =93binary search=94 =
algorithm=85 =20
>>>=20
>>> [...] so I=92m going to try r263407.  Mostly zfs changes from =
Illumos, but.
>>=20
>> r263407 showed no problems.  I just rebooted a few times more and see
>> no issues.  I worry I'm chasing ghosts, but am going to try r263470 =
next.
>=20
> I ran r263470 for a week or so, with quite a few reboots (7, it =
appears).
> Never tried more than once to boot successfully.  Next, I'm going to =
confirm
> I still get crashes with a fresh build of r263478.  But, there's only =
about 1000
> lines of diff between those two revisions, much of it changes to =
routing and
> related networking code.  So, could certainly be it.

  Easily confirmed.  The first attempt to boot an r263478 stable/10 =
kernel
panic=92d, and there were 10 more boot-and-panic attempts before it
successfully booted.

http://svnweb.freebsd.org/base?view=3Drevision&sortby=3Ddate&revision=3D26=
3478

  I can try manually reverting each of the specified revisions (262763, =
262767,
262771, and 262806) from the code, but I=92d feel better having someone =
with
deeper knowledge of the networking code and/or sparc64 MD architecture
take a closer look at it from here.  Anyone available?

  Kurt, I know you said you saw this on head back in March:

=
http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-sparc64/2014-March/009261.html

  ..which looks like it was before (r262669) the things listed above as
MFC=92d.  And, I see another email from you in 2013 that looks like the =
same=20
issue in head r257208.

=
http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-sparc64/2013-October/009085.htm=
l

  So, I=92m a bit confused.  It looks like this goes back much further =
than my
testing had revealed.  But, maybe the things MFC=92d in stable/10 =
r263478
either (a) included bits that were also in other revisions, or (b) =
provoked
the same problem provoked earlier in head, just in a different =
way/place.

  I=92m at a bit of a loss for what to do now, but would really like to =
see this
get resolved.  I don=92t like the fact that numerous of us on the list =
have
seem this problem, and are having difficulty running machines (v240
only?) because of it.

  If there=92s anything else I can do, I have a machine that appears to =
be
behaving semi-consistently with these two revisions of stable/10.  I=92m
happy to help further.

                               - Chris




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?AF5EA0E6-860B-47DF-AC5E-6A45317C6092>