2010/8/4 m...@freebsd.org:
On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 2:31 PM, John Baldwin j...@freebsd.org wrote:
On Friday, July 30, 2010 10:08:22 am John Baldwin wrote:
On Thursday, July 29, 2010 7:39:02 pm m...@freebsd.org wrote:
We've seen a few instances at work where witness_warn() in ast()
indicates
On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 2:43 PM, Attilio Rao atti...@freebsd.org wrote:
2010/8/4 m...@freebsd.org:
On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 2:31 PM, John Baldwin j...@freebsd.org wrote:
On Friday, July 30, 2010 10:08:22 am John Baldwin wrote:
On Thursday, July 29, 2010 7:39:02 pm m...@freebsd.org wrote:
2010/8/5 John Baldwin j...@freebsd.org:
On Thursday, August 05, 2010 11:59:37 am m...@freebsd.org wrote:
On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 11:55 AM, John Baldwin j...@freebsd.org wrote:
On Wednesday, August 04, 2010 12:20:31 pm m...@freebsd.org wrote:
On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 2:26 PM, John Baldwin
On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 11:55 AM, John Baldwin j...@freebsd.org wrote:
On Wednesday, August 04, 2010 12:20:31 pm m...@freebsd.org wrote:
On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 2:26 PM, John Baldwin j...@freebsd.org wrote:
On Tuesday, August 03, 2010 9:46:16 pm m...@freebsd.org wrote:
On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at
On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 9:20 AM, m...@freebsd.org wrote:
On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 2:26 PM, John Baldwin j...@freebsd.org wrote:
Actually, I would beg to differ in that case. If PCPU_GET(spinlocks)
returns non-NULL, then it means that you hold a spin lock,
ll_count is 0 for the correct
On Thu, Aug 05, 2010 at 09:01:22AM -0700, m...@freebsd.org wrote:
On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 9:20 AM, m...@freebsd.org wrote:
On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 2:26 PM, John Baldwin j...@freebsd.org wrote:
Actually, I would beg to differ in that case. If PCPU_GET(spinlocks)
returns non-NULL, then it
On Thursday, August 05, 2010 12:01:22 pm m...@freebsd.org wrote:
On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 9:20 AM, m...@freebsd.org wrote:
On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 2:26 PM, John Baldwin j...@freebsd.org wrote:
Actually, I would beg to differ in that case. If PCPU_GET(spinlocks)
returns non-NULL, then it
On Thursday, August 05, 2010 11:59:37 am m...@freebsd.org wrote:
On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 11:55 AM, John Baldwin j...@freebsd.org wrote:
On Wednesday, August 04, 2010 12:20:31 pm m...@freebsd.org wrote:
On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 2:26 PM, John Baldwin j...@freebsd.org wrote:
On Tuesday, August
(gdb) p panic_cpu
$9 = 2
(gdb) p dumptid
$12 = 100751
(gdb) p cpuhead.slh_first-pc_allcpu.sle_next-pc_curthread-td_tid
$14 = 100751
(gdb) p *cpuhead.slh_first-pc_allcpu.sle_next
$6 = {
pc_curthread = 0xff00716d6960,
pc_cpuid = 2,
pc_spinlocks = 0x80803198,
(gdb) p
On Tuesday, August 03, 2010 9:46:16 pm m...@freebsd.org wrote:
On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 2:31 PM, John Baldwin j...@freebsd.org wrote:
On Friday, July 30, 2010 10:08:22 am John Baldwin wrote:
On Thursday, July 29, 2010 7:39:02 pm m...@freebsd.org wrote:
We've seen a few instances at work
On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 2:26 PM, John Baldwin j...@freebsd.org wrote:
On Tuesday, August 03, 2010 9:46:16 pm m...@freebsd.org wrote:
On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 2:31 PM, John Baldwin j...@freebsd.org wrote:
On Friday, July 30, 2010 10:08:22 am John Baldwin wrote:
On Thursday, July 29, 2010
On Wednesday, August 04, 2010 12:20:31 pm m...@freebsd.org wrote:
On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 2:26 PM, John Baldwin j...@freebsd.org wrote:
On Tuesday, August 03, 2010 9:46:16 pm m...@freebsd.org wrote:
On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 2:31 PM, John Baldwin j...@freebsd.org wrote:
On Friday, July 30,
On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 2:31 PM, John Baldwin j...@freebsd.org wrote:
On Friday, July 30, 2010 10:08:22 am John Baldwin wrote:
On Thursday, July 29, 2010 7:39:02 pm m...@freebsd.org wrote:
We've seen a few instances at work where witness_warn() in ast()
indicates the sched lock is still
On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 04:57:25PM -0700, m...@freebsd.org wrote:
On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 4:39 PM, m...@freebsd.org wrote:
We've seen a few instances at work where witness_warn() in ast()
indicates the sched lock is still held, but the place it claims it was
held by is in fact sometimes
2010/7/30 Kostik Belousov kostik...@gmail.com:
On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 04:57:25PM -0700, m...@freebsd.org wrote:
On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 4:39 PM, m...@freebsd.org wrote:
We've seen a few instances at work where witness_warn() in ast()
indicates the sched lock is still held, but the place it
On Thursday, July 29, 2010 7:39:02 pm m...@freebsd.org wrote:
We've seen a few instances at work where witness_warn() in ast()
indicates the sched lock is still held, but the place it claims it was
held by is in fact sometimes not possible to keep the lock, like:
thread_lock(td);
On Friday, July 30, 2010 10:08:22 am John Baldwin wrote:
On Thursday, July 29, 2010 7:39:02 pm m...@freebsd.org wrote:
We've seen a few instances at work where witness_warn() in ast()
indicates the sched lock is still held, but the place it claims it was
held by is in fact sometimes not
We've seen a few instances at work where witness_warn() in ast()
indicates the sched lock is still held, but the place it claims it was
held by is in fact sometimes not possible to keep the lock, like:
thread_lock(td);
td-td_flags = ~TDF_SELECT;
thread_unlock(td);
What I
On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 4:39 PM, m...@freebsd.org wrote:
We've seen a few instances at work where witness_warn() in ast()
indicates the sched lock is still held, but the place it claims it was
held by is in fact sometimes not possible to keep the lock, like:
thread_lock(td);
19 matches
Mail list logo
