Re: [osol-discuss] kernel threads
Hi, ramana polamarasetti wrote: On Fri, 25 Jan 2008, ramana polamarasetti wrote: Hi, Can anyone tell me what are all the differences between the threads created with thread_create() and those created with lwp_create()? And is there any way to get an lwp, but using thread_create()? Thanks for any help, Ramana Where do you want to create threads ? In you application ? In a kernel driver of yours ? In my kernel module. If the former, i.e. you want to use threads in your application, then you're way along the wrong path, check thr_create() resp. pthread_create() instead. If the latter, i.e. you want to create a thread from within your kernel driver, then please consider first whether other asynchronous mechanisms (taskq or timeout) would do instead. The use of threads breaks power management interfaces, and creates difficult-to-deal-with races on driver unloading. In any case, if you have to it's thread_create(). Calling lwp_create from a kernel driver will get you into trouble. Why would you want to create an LWP from within a kernel driver ? My present code uses thread_create(). I am seeing kernel panics due to an ASSERT fail in the sfmmu_tsbmiss_exception(). If you're looking for something entirely different, the way how to find out which LWP is executing your kernel driver code, use: klwp_t *curlwp = ttolwp(threadp()); Can you clarify what you want to achieve ? If I do this in my thread, I am getting curlwp as NULL. because there is no LWP created when I do a thread_create(). And this sfmmu_tsbmiss_exception() is doing the same thing. 11824 /* 11825 * Must set lwp state to LWP_SYS before 11826 * trying to acquire any adaptive lock 11827 */ 11828 lwp = ttolwp(curthread); 11829 ASSERT(lwp); // this is causing kernel panic So, to avoid this I was just trying to see if it is possible to use lwp_create(). Creating a kernel thread does not imply that a klwp_t is created. What information from an lwp do you need? If there is no user level, you should not need an lwp. So, why do you think you need one? max thanks, FrankH. ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org Thanks for the reply. This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] kernel threads
On Mon, 28 Jan 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, [ ... ] Calling lwp_create from a kernel driver will get you into trouble. Why would you want to create an LWP from within a kernel driver ? My present code uses thread_create(). I am seeing kernel panics due to an ASSERT fail in the sfmmu_tsbmiss_exception(). And why do you think that would have anything to do with each other ? If you're looking for something entirely different, the way how to find out which LWP is executing your kernel driver code, use: klwp_t *curlwp = ttolwp(threadp()); Can you clarify what you want to achieve ? If I do this in my thread, I am getting curlwp as NULL. because there is no LWP created when I do a thread_create(). And this sfmmu_tsbmiss_exception() is doing the same thing. 11824 /* 11825 * Must set lwp state to LWP_SYS before 11826 * trying to acquire any adaptive lock 11827 */ Can you explain that sourcecode comment ? It's wrong, but why you think this should be so might give more insight as to what your expectations actually are ? 11828 lwp = ttolwp(curthread); 11829 ASSERT(lwp); // this is causing kernel panic And what is unusual by that ? Not every thread has an LWP, it's pretty normal to see ttolwp(curthread) being NULL. The only thing that tells you is that the currently running thread is not part of any userland process but has been created by the kernel itself, or by some kernel driver. So, to avoid this I was just trying to see if it is possible to use lwp_create(). Creating a kernel thread does not imply that a klwp_t is created. What information from an lwp do you need? If there is no user level, you should not need an lwp. So, why do you think you need one? Seconding Max here - why do you think you need one ? Thx, FrankH. ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] SchilliX-0.6 ready
Hello Joerg, Good news Joerg! However - is it a one-time shot or do you have some plans to move it forward? Do you have some plans how do you want diffrentiate SchilliX from SXCE, Indiana, Nexenta, ... ? -- Best regards, Robert Milkowskimailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://milek.blogspot.com ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] ¨Could not look up internet address for unknown¨
Oops, forgot to mention this. If you do not have a qualified domain name as your hostname or as an alias (i.e., using the laptop hostname instead of the qualified domain name such as laptop.com or laptop.net, etc.), Solaris will complain about an unqualified unknown host. The easiest approach to solve this is to select a qualified domain name as your hostname, e.g.: # echo laptop.com /etc/nodemane then edit the /etc/inet/hosts file so that this contains an entry like this: 127.0.0.1 localhost laptop.com loghost This should remove the warning message. Solaris is indeed much stricter than most other OSes. However, after the Societe Generale fiasco, it is definitely preferable to have an OS that insists upon enforcing strict rules than losing $7 billion. Indeed it should be made a law that every chief executive use Solaris as his/her primary OS. :-) This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Really only a recompile between x86 and SPARC?
Hi, I know Clearcase on Solaris SPARC is available, has IBM/Rational added Solaris x86 support and from when? Thanks This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] kernel threads
On Mon, 28 Jan 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [ ... ] My present code uses thread_create(). I am seeing kernel panics due to an ASSERT fail in the sfmmu_tsbmiss_exception(). Can you please post the part of the output of ::msgbuf (from mdb on your crashdump) following the panic[cpu...] line ? I do think you're running way down the wrong track there. You get a trap because of an invalid pointer, that the trap handling mechanism doesn't tell you that clearly but fails somewhere else is more than likely just an artifact. The _real_ meat is elsewhere. when you do crashdump analysis, don't always focus only on the topmost function in a stacktrace. There's more to it than that and the bug you try to track down fix isn't necessarily at the very place where things fall over. Are you willing to share that crashdump with the community ? Thx, FrankH. ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Solaris 10 WIFI Configuration
Thank you Shawn I'm gonna try with your links This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] kernel threads
Hi Frank, I think you meant to send this to Ramana, not me... max [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, 28 Jan 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [ ... ] My present code uses thread_create(). I am seeing kernel panics due to an ASSERT fail in the sfmmu_tsbmiss_exception(). Can you please post the part of the output of ::msgbuf (from mdb on your crashdump) following the panic[cpu...] line ? I do think you're running way down the wrong track there. You get a trap because of an invalid pointer, that the trap handling mechanism doesn't tell you that clearly but fails somewhere else is more than likely just an artifact. The _real_ meat is elsewhere. when you do crashdump analysis, don't always focus only on the topmost function in a stacktrace. There's more to it than that and the bug you try to track down fix isn't necessarily at the very place where things fall over. Are you willing to share that crashdump with the community ? Thx, FrankH. ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Support Open Solaris in IDE
You can try it now! I prepared a set of IDE projects for build 77 of Open Solaris. You can download it by the following link: http://osproject.sundemo.ru/ What's your opinion? Any feedback is highly appreciated. This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Really only a recompile between x86 and SPARC?
On Jan 28, 2008 8:00 AM, russell aspinwall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, I know Clearcase on Solaris SPARC is available, has IBM/Rational added Solaris x86 support and from when? http://www-1.ibm.com/support/docview.wss?rs=0uid=swg21234501 ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Anybody now will Oracle make 11g release for Solaris x86?
Hi, I think Tom has spelt the problem out very well. Oracle will only release a Open(Solaris) x86-64 version when they have finished all there priority releases and then depending what demand there is for the product. I got my reply back from Oracle and now they just point me to there support site which says that current support release is 10gR2 and no news about release dates (if any) for 11g. My money will be on a 11gR2 release, so at least another year. I will no chase Sun up to see what they say. Andrew Hello, 1. Oracle 11gR1 for Solaris 10 (SPARC) is a priority and the x86 edition of Oracle 11gR1 was proposed (I expect it for Oracle 11gR2 once stable on other primary Oses - if demand is there and to supercede 10g). The 'proposed' status is documented in Oracle's product certification matrix as well (although, it may not be up to date based on certain previous comments on the terminal release). Note: Most ISVs run into the issue of resources, support, training and/or customer (i.e. mid-large enterprise/business demand/ROI) of the product. 2. Review installs of Oracle 10gR2 on the various OpenSolaris distros (SXCE/SXDE, Schillix, Nexenta, Belenix, Indiana) Note: http://bderzhavets.blogspot.com/2007/10/install-oracle-10.html http://www.opensolaris.org/jive/thread.jspa?threadID=9161 You may want to ask Sun about their reviews and speculations on future Oracle 11g+ support on Solaris x86 as well. ~ Ken Mays - Hello Andrew, Friday, January 25, 2008, 8:13:46 PM, you wrote: AW I have been looking into this recently and I got a reply from AW those Oracle people, which is not what I was hoping for. Again it AW is down to the same old problem of demand for an Application on AW OpenSolaris/Solaris x86 platform. I guess it is the same problem AW the Linux people had a few years ago, so there is still hope. AW From Oracle=== 11g is not planned for Solaris Operating System x86. In the General Notes For Oracle Database - Enterprise Edition On Solaris Operating System x86 it states Terminal Release: * 10gR2 is the terminal release for this platform. Regards, AW My understand of this is that there will not be a x86 release of AW 11gR1, but I guess there is still hope for 11gR2 version DOes it mean not 32bit version or does it meant they abandon Solaris x86 altogether?!?!!?!? Best regards, Robert Milkowski Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Anybody now will Oracle make 11g release for Solaris x86?
Hello, 1. Oracle 11gR1 for Solaris 10 (SPARC) is a priority and the x86 edition of Oracle 11gR1 was proposed (I expect it for Oracle 11gR2 once stable on other primary Oses - if demand is there and to supercede 10g). The 'proposed' status is documented in Oracle's product certification matrix as well (although, it may not be up to date based on certain previous comments on the terminal release). Note: Most ISVs run into the issue of resources, support, training and/or customer (i.e. mid-large enterprise/business demand/ROI) of the product. 2. Review installs of Oracle 10gR2 on the various OpenSolaris distros (SXCE/SXDE, Schillix, Nexenta, Belenix, Indiana) Note: http://bderzhavets.blogspot.com/2007/10/install-oracle-10.html http://www.opensolaris.org/jive/thread.jspa?threadID=9161 You may want to ask Sun about their reviews and speculations on future Oracle 11g+ support on Solaris x86 as well. ~ Ken Mays - Hello Andrew, Friday, January 25, 2008, 8:13:46 PM, you wrote: AW I have been looking into this recently and I got a reply from AW those Oracle people, which is not what I was hoping for. Again it AW is down to the same old problem of demand for an Application on AW OpenSolaris/Solaris x86 platform. I guess it is the same problem AW the Linux people had a few years ago, so there is still hope. AW From Oracle=== 11g is not planned for Solaris Operating System x86. In the General Notes For Oracle Database - Enterprise Edition On Solaris Operating System x86 it states Terminal Release: * 10gR2 is the terminal release for this platform. Regards, AW My understand of this is that there will not be a x86 release of AW 11gR1, but I guess there is still hope for 11gR2 version DOes it mean not 32bit version or does it meant they abandon Solaris x86 altogether?!?!!?!? Best regards, Robert Milkowski Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] NexentaCP and X
On Jan 28, 2008 8:50 PM, Martti Hamunen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Erast how can I go on... 1. X-works, but there are messages:...no /root/.xsession no/root/.Xsession... no window manager where can I download: xdm, gdm, kdm... er.., I think you have to on your own. 2. Building/Porting packages for Nexenta. /etc/apt/sources.list deb-src http://archive.ubuntu... Done, but then 3. (=2 in the direction) Create GPG Keys How? I have only Command line no graphic. Creating GPG keys is not dependent of GUI. Take a look at here: http://www.nexenta.org/os/CreatePublicGPGKey Thanks, -Aubrey ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] eclipse-SDK-3.3.1.1-solaris-gtk-x86.zip
Or you could get a clean compile yourself of Eclipse v3.3.0 via CBE, as I did. No errors or something. They are updating the CBE spec-file sometime, so watch it. v3.3.0 works good for me. Ive also talked with the manager of blastwave and Eclipse is available (now/soon) via blastwave.org. Compile Eclipse yourself via CBE: http://www.opensolaris.org/jive/thread.jspa?threadID=48847tstart=15 This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] SchilliX-0.6 ready
Robert Milkowski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello Joerg, Good news Joerg! However - is it a one-time shot or do you have some plans to move it forward? I am not able to forward as fast as before, but I am able to do things again as I don't have a highly time consuming job as in 2006 to stop me from doing work on SchilliX at all. Do you have some plans how do you want diffrentiate SchilliX from SXCE, Indiana, Nexenta, ... ? I am not sure whether Indiana wants to differenciate from SchilliX... Nexenta is obviously different from SchilliX as Nexenta tries to replicate Ubuntu with Solaris. SchilliX tries to deliver a classical UNIX environment. Jörg -- EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin [EMAIL PROTECTED](uni) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] resolution
Please repost this to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with more details. Your question is unclear. Also did you check the FAQ? http://www.genunix.org/wiki/index.php/OpenSolaris_New_User_FAQ Cheers, Brian On Jan 28, 2008 1:58 AM, vinay simha bn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: if i log into solaris other than root user i cannot modify the resolution.. why i cannot modify the resolution This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org -- - Brian Gupta http://opensolaris.org/os/project/nycosug/ ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] GDM login process Bugs? (possible Magic-cookie?)
I currently have a small network that is comprised of Solaris 10 08/07 machines with Trusted Extensions enabled on all machines. The network does have a Trusted Extensions LDAP server that serves the network. The LDAP server is Directory Server 5.2 P4. I have not loaded any patch clusters on any of the systems. I am seeing some annoying behavior on all the systems that I have as well as all users. After a user logs out the gdm login screen is displayed however, a File browser is also displayed (sometimes multiple browsers). So, I am at the login screen however I can traverse the file system and other tools as the user that just logged out. On occasion, an entire desktop is displayed after logout. The desktop has no trusted path stripe, therefore I can not log out again nor perform any other meaningful function. This effectively disables any login or logout to the machine. The only fixes are remotely login to the box and restart gdm2-login or reboot the box. Currently I have disable cde-login and enable gdm2-login. This is not a hard requirement but I would rather use the newer GDM login interface. Has anyone else seen similar behavior? Again, Sol 10 8/07 no patches. This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] Problem with GeForce 6200 and Nvidia driver
Look into into the archives of 'help'. I described about my woes with GeForce 6200 and the solution: Downgrading the driver to the one available with SXDE 09/07. Works fabulously here. YMMV Thanks for the tip. I will revert back to build 73 Nvidia driver. Now that you mentioned it I do remembera conversation about them having to break the Nvidia driver for lower class devices to support the upper class ones Thanks mike This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] NexentaCP and X
Martti, thanks for trying! NCP do not intend to ship any GUIs and GUI applications on top. Please read policy on what is allowed in 'main' repository: http://www.nexenta.org/os/NexentaRepositoryPolicyMain NCP main repository is self sufficient and any package in it could be installed and if needed rebuilt. The process is outlined here: http://www.nexenta.org/os/BuildingPackages We believe that there are a lot of talented developers out there with artistic skills who could add their value on top of NCP and produce best of the class OpenSolaris Desktops! If you one of them - you could start your own APT repository and share it with others. If you are just a user - simply wait till somebody else will jump in and produce it for you. On Mon, 2008-01-28 at 04:50 -0800, Martti Hamunen wrote: Erast how can I go on... 1. X-works, but there are messages:...no /root/.xsession no/root/.Xsession... no window manager where can I download: xdm, gdm, kdm... 2. Building/Porting packages for Nexenta. /etc/apt/sources.list deb-src http://archive.ubuntu... Done, but then 3. (=2 in the direction) Create GPG Keys How? I have only Command line no graphic. 4. Peharps this is too difficulty for beginners...I hope that the final Nexenta is a little easier to install. 5. But of course I want try. The earlier Nexenta was easier, perhaps in sources.list could be more for helping to start. Martti This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] Sol 10 TX Home Directories LDAP AUTOFS
I currently have a small network that is comprised of Solaris 10 08/07 machines with Trusted Extensions enable on all machines. The network does have a Trusted Extensions LDAP server that serves the network. The LDAP server is Directory Server 5.2 P4. I have not loaded any patch clusters on any of the systems. When I create a user I have to perform a lengthy process to ensure the user can log in at multiple levels simultaneously. After the user is created, the process is as follows: On the LDAP/Home Directory Server (My LDAP Server also serves the Home Directories) 1. Log into the system as the newly created user 2. Ensure the session is Trusted JDS. 3. Ensure “Restrict to Single level” is selected. 4. Select the Lowest Level Label available to the user. For example if your label encodings file contain the labels FU and BAR, with FU being dominated by BAR you would select FU. 5. Continue the login process. A single level desktop would be displayed and the user can open terminal windows, etc.. 6. Logout of the system. Do not logout until a desktop is displayed. 7. Repeat steps 1-6 for all possible labels for the user, selecting 1 at a time. 8. Once the user has a desktop at all levels, log in to the system. 9. Make sure “Restrict to Single Label” is NOT checked. 10. Select the Highest possible label for the user. This will enable the user to select workspaces at all levels. 11. The desktop is loaded for the highest label available. 12. In the workspace selector, select each workspace and change the label on the workspace to another security label. 13. Repeat step 12 until all labels are represented. (The only desktop the will be available is the highest level desktop, the other desktops WILL NOT be loaded) 14. Log out and log back in again ensuring that the “Restrict to Single Label” is NOT checked and select the highest possible label for the user. At this point all desktops will appear. 15. Repeat the entire process for every client machine that the user will need access to. This process only needs to be executed once for each user on each system for all labels. Currently this is a small network, and although time consuming this process is Ok. However, as the network increases and users increase the process will to cumbersome. I have read in the TX install guide explains this process for the Home Directory server. But I have to do this on the clients as well. Once the process is complete I can log in as the user and verify that autofs is mounting the home directory properly. I have not tried the script that is in the install guide either. I will need to modify the script to ensure only new users are given home dirs. Has anyone else experienced this behavior or found a fix? Again I am running DS 5.2 P4 and no additional patch clusters. This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] NexentaCP and X
Erast how can I go on... 1. X-works, but there are messages:...no /root/.xsession no/root/.Xsession... no window manager where can I download: xdm, gdm, kdm... 2. Building/Porting packages for Nexenta. /etc/apt/sources.list deb-src http://archive.ubuntu... Done, but then 3. (=2 in the direction) Create GPG Keys How? I have only Command line no graphic. 4. Peharps this is too difficulty for beginners...I hope that the final Nexenta is a little easier to install. 5. But of course I want try. The earlier Nexenta was easier, perhaps in sources.list could be more for helping to start. Martti This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] kernel threads
On Mon, 28 Jan 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [ ... ] My present code uses thread_create(). I am seeing kernel panics due to an ASSERT fail in the sfmmu_tsbmiss_exception(). Can you please post the part of the output of ::msgbuf (from mdb on your crashdump) following the panic[cpu...] line ? panic[cpu0]/thread=2a108169cc0: BAD TRAP: type=31 rp=2a1081693a0 addr=349 mmu_fsr=0 occurred in module unix du e to a NULL pointer dereference updisk: trap type = 0x31 addr=0x349 pid=984, pc=0x1034db8, sp=0x2a108168c41, tstate=0x441601, context=0x1 g1-g7: 60016022090, 2a108169cc0, 42f90, 8, 121c574, 0, 2a108169cc0 02a1081690c0 unix:die+78 (31, 2a1081693a0, 349, 0, 2a108169180, 108dc00) %l0-3: 0031 0100 2000 %l4-7: 0182d0f0 0182d000 0005 0001 02a1081691a0 unix:trap+9d8 (2a1081693a0, 0, 5, 1c00, 0, 1) %l0-3: 060016022090 0031 %l4-7: e000 004325ca 0005 0001 02a1081692f0 unix:ktl0+64 (60008b5cb64, 42f98, 1, fff8, 7331b, 1 ) %l0-3: 0180c000 00441601 0101e3a8 %l4-7: 0300014c3e40 004325ca 02a1081693a0 02a108169440 genunix:uiomove+90 (2a1081695a0, 42001, 31, 0, 43254b, 60015481 0c8) %l0-3: 0180c000 0001 1c00 %l4-7: 0300014c3e40 004325ca 0002 0180c000 02a1081694f0 unix:ktl0+64 (60008b5cb64, 42f98, 1, fff8, 7331b, 1 ) %l0-3: 0180c000 80001607 01034d64 %l4-7: 0008 02a108169940 02a1081695a0 02a108169640 genunix:uiomove+90 (60008b5cb5c, 8, 0, 2a108169950, 0, 8) %l0-3: 02a108169960 02a108169950 0002 8000 %l4-7: 0008 02a108169940 02a108169950 060008b5cb64 02a1081696f0 genunix:struiocopyout+38 (60003b53080, 2a108169950, 2a108169864 , 0, 60008b5cb64, 1) %l0-3: 030015d9bd18 030015d9bc98 0002 8000 %l4-7: 0008 0008 02a108169950 060008b5cb64 02a1081697a0 genunix:strread+4b4 (0, 2a108169950, 0, 30017460860, 0, 0) %l0-3: 030015d9bd18 030015d9bc98 0002 8000 %l4-7: 060003b53080 02a108169870 ipfs:ipfs_in+1e8 (0, 3001bba0940, 30017460860, 8, 2a108169ab0, 0) %l0-3: 018ec400 030015d9bc98 060005e8 %l4-7: 060005e80068 0008 0600153ad4e0 02a108169990 ipfs:ipfs_active_in+ec (60005e8, 3001bba0940, 60016dc0400, 600153a, 0, 60005e800d8) %l0-3: 0600153ad120 704a5400 %l4-7: 060005e80068 060005e8 0600153ad4e0 I do think you're running way down the wrong track there. You get a trap because of an invalid pointer, that the trap handling mechanism doesn't tell you that clearly but fails somewhere else is more than likely just an artifact. The _real_ meat is elsewhere. when you do crashdump analysis, don't always focus only on the topmost function in a stacktrace. There's more to it than that and the bug you try to track down fix isn't necessarily at the very place where things fall over. Are you willing to share that crashdump with the community ? I dont think you would like this, Its from Solaris 10 not OpenSolaris. Thx, FrankH. ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] kernel threads
On Mon, 28 Jan 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, [ ... ] Calling lwp_create from a kernel driver will get you into trouble. Why would you want to create an LWP from within a kernel driver ? My present code uses thread_create(). I am seeing kernel panics due to an ASSERT fail in the sfmmu_tsbmiss_exception(). And why do you think that would have anything to do with each other ? If you're looking for something entirely different, the way how to find out which LWP is executing your kernel driver code, use: klwp_t *curlwp = ttolwp(threadp()); Can you clarify what you want to achieve ? If I do this in my thread, I am getting curlwp as NULL. because there is no LWP created when I do a thread_create(). And this sfmmu_tsbmiss_exception() is doing the same thing. 11824 /* 11825* Must set lwp state to LWP_SYS before 11826* trying to acquire any adaptive lock 11827*/ Can you explain that sourcecode comment ? It's wrong, but why you think this should be so might give more insight as to what your expectations actually are ? This comment is from /usr/src/uts/sfmmu/vm/hat_sfmmu.c . My intention is just to create a thread and I achieved it by thread_create() but because of this code in sfmmu_tsbmiss_exception() function my code with thread_create() is causing kernel panics. So wondering if I can get rid of this if I can get a valid lwp value. 11828 lwp = ttolwp(curthread); 11829 ASSERT(lwp); // this is causing kernel panic And what is unusual by that ? Not every thread has an LWP, it's pretty normal to see ttolwp(curthread) being NULL. The only thing that tells you is that the currently running thread is not part of any userland process but has been created by the kernel itself, or by some kernel driver. So, to avoid this I was just trying to see if it is possible to use lwp_create(). Creating a kernel thread does not imply that a klwp_t is created. What information from an lwp do you need? If there is no user level, you should not need an lwp. So, why do you think you need one? Seconding Max here - why do you think you need one ? Thx, FrankH. ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] [osol-announce] No update on SXCE Build 79
I think too many of us are too obsessed with the SXCE updates. Let's move at least some of our vigors to Indiana. This is where actions should be in the next couple of months. :-) (Is anyone aware that OOo 2.3.1 now works in the update version of India?) Not everyone agrees with you on this. It is my understanding that SXCE releases will continue, and until such time as standards compliancy is actually considered a goal of Indiana, it is of little interest. Frankly, if forced to discontinue my reliance on SXCE, I will likely go to ShilliX, as said compliancy is one of ShilliX's expressed goals. SXCE does what I want. I want extensions on top of that functionality, which SXCE has delivered on. I don't want Ian (or anyone else) telling me I'm wrong and my thinking is outdated. These are my needs. They are what drive my choices. Indiana can have my attention when it's goals are more in-line with my needs. Computers are not about community, they are not about feeling good, they are not about finding a problem to solve, they are about solving the problem you have. This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] [osol-announce] No update on SXCE Build 79
I think too many of us are too obsessed with the SXCE updates. Let's move at least some of our vigors to Indiana. This is where actions should be in the next couple of months. :-) (Is anyone aware that OOo 2.3.1 now works in the update version of India?) Not everyone agrees with you on this. It is my understanding that SXCE releases will continue, and until such time as standards compliancy is actually considered a goal of Indiana, it is of little interest. Frankly, if forced to discontinue my reliance on SXCE, I will likely go to ShilliX, as said compliancy is one of ShilliX's expressed goals. SXCE does what I want. I want extensions on top of that functionality, which SXCE has delivered on. I don't want Ian (or anyone else) telling me I'm wrong and my thinking is outdated. These are my needs. They are what drive my choices. Indiana can have my attention when it's goals are more in-line with my needs. Computers are not about community, they are not about feeling good, they are not about finding a problem to solve, they are about solving the problem you have. Because there is no option to multi-boot Indiana with other Solaris slices, it is not easy even for us to try to play with Indiana. One of the options is to install Indiana into an external USB partition. My attitude is, we should try to do anything to help. This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
