Testers Needed!!

[Wilko Bulte]

On Wed, Mar 17, 2004 at 11:22:31AM -0500, John Baldwin wrote:
> On Wednesday 17 March 2004 02:28 am, Wilko Bulte wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 16, 2004 at 05:48:49PM +0100, Wilko Bulte wrote:
> > > On Tue, Mar 16, 2004 at 10:59:04AM -0500, John Baldwin wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday 16 March 2004 01:57 am, Wilko Bulte wrote:

> > backtrace() at backtrace+0x2c^M
> > witness_checkorder() at witness_checkorder+0x6c0^M
> > _mtx_lock_flags() at _mtx_lock_flags+0x9c^M
> > obj_alloc() at obj_alloc+0x58^M
> > slab_zalloc() at slab_zalloc+0xcc^M
> > uma_zone_slab() at uma_zone_slab+0x108^M
> > uma_zalloc_internal() at uma_zalloc_internal+0x5c^M
> > uma_zalloc_arg() at uma_zalloc_arg+0x418^M
> > swp_pager_meta_build() at swp_pager_meta_build+0x148^M
> > swap_pager_putpages() at swap_pager_putpages+0x380^M
> > default_pager_putpages() at default_pager_putpages+0x1c^M
> > vm_pageout_flush() at vm_pageout_flush+0x1e0^M
> > _end() at 0xfffffc003fade020^M
> > prologue botch: displacement 16^M
> > panic:
> >
> > Machine seems to have locked up solid, I cannot get back to the console,
> > does not react to a break. It does respond to ping's however.
> 
> Hmm, well, that LOR is a known bogus one.  It seems that ddb panic'd trying to 
> do the backtrace though (tracing off of _end is usually a bad sign).  Can you 
> reproduce any of these problems if you test under load w/o the preemption 
> patch?

With the patch still in I just got:

db> trace
Debugger() at Debugger+0x38
__panic() at __panic+0x228
sleepq_timeout() at sleepq_timeout+0x10c
softclock() at softclock+0x228
ithread_loop() at ithread_loop+0x1a4
fork_exit() at fork_exit+0x100
exception_return() at exception_return
--- root of call graph ---
db> 

Sofar I seem to have a set of different footprints.

-- 
Wilko Bulte				wilko at FreeBSD.org