On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 12:13:54 -0800, "J.C. Roberts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I found something interesting, namely a (more than once) >reported bug that looks very similar to "The" alpha bug. The primary >difference is you get "cpu_switch_queuescan" rather than "cpu_switch" in >the trace output. > >2003-10-01 21:40:00 >http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=openbsd-alpha&m=106504464724168&w=2 > >2003-08-03 12:00:14 >http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=openbsd-alpha&m=105999853009839&w=2 > >There is also another report that is vague but since it is missing the >needed trace information, there's no way to tell if it's related. >2003-05-13 22:13:50 >http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=openbsd-bugs&m=105286536018393&w=2 Yes, the two bugs, one which shows "cpu_switch" in the trace output and the other that shows "cpu_switch_queuescan" in the trace output, are definitely related. I managed to reproduce the "cpu_switch_queuescan" output originally reported from OpenBSD 3.3 while compiling 3.8-STABLE tonight. The only change in the source files is that I enabled the #makeoptions DEBUG="-g" line in /src/sys/conf/GENERIC file. I'm going to try flipping this back and forth a few times to see if it really is the deciding factor for which output the bug displays. JCR
