Re: ZFS deadlock in 14 [USE_TMPFS=no poudriere messed up from the start, lots of "vlruwk"]

On Aug 19, 2023, at 16:27, Mark Millard wrote: > On Aug 19, 2023, at 15:41, Mark Millard wrote: > >> On Aug 19, 2023, at 13:41, Mark Millard wrote: >> >>> [I forgot to adjust USE_TMPFS for the purpose of the test. >>> So I'll later be starting over.] >>> >>> . . . >> >> I finally got around

Re: ZFS deadlock in 14 [USE_TMPFS=no poudriere messed up from the start, lots of "vlruwk"]

On Aug 19, 2023, at 15:41, Mark Millard wrote: > On Aug 19, 2023, at 13:41, Mark Millard wrote: > >> [I forgot to adjust USE_TMPFS for the purpose of the test. >> So I'll later be starting over.] >> >> . . . > > I finally got around to starting a from-scratch bulk -a > again (based on USE_TMP

Re: ZFS deadlock in 14 [USE_TMPFS=no poudriere messed up from the start, lots of "vlruwk"]

On Aug 19, 2023, at 13:41, Mark Millard wrote: > [I forgot to adjust USE_TMPFS for the purpose of the test. > So I'll later be starting over.] > > . . . I finally got around to starting a from-scratch bulk -a again (based on USE_TMPFS=no this time). This is with 15107.patch and 15122.patch appl

Re: ZFS deadlock in 14

[I forgot to adjust USE_TMPFS for the purpose of the test. So I'll later be starting over.] On Aug 19, 2023, at 12:18, Mark Millard wrote: > On Aug 19, 2023, at 11:40, Mark Millard wrote: > >> We will see how long the following high load average bulk -a >> configuration survives a build attemp

Re: building with llvm16 pkg fails in tests

On 8/17/23 21:33, Brooks Davis wrote: On Thu, Aug 17, 2023 at 12:45:06PM +0200, Ronald Klop wrote: Hi, To save time on my Raspberry Pi I would like to build FreeBSD using a llvm pkg instead of llvm in the tree. My /etc/make.conf: WITHOUT_TOOLCHAIN=yes LD=/usr/local/llvm16/bin/ld.lld CC=/usr/l

Re: ZFS deadlock in 14

On Aug 19, 2023, at 11:40, Mark Millard wrote: > We will see how long the following high load average bulk -a > configuration survives a build attempt, using a non-debug kernel > for this test. > > I've applied: > > # fetch -o- https://github.com/openzfs/zfs/pull/15107.patch | git -C > /usr/ma

Re: ZFS deadlock in 14

We will see how long the following high load average bulk -a configuration survives a build attempt, using a non-debug kernel for this test. I've applied: # fetch -o- https://github.com/openzfs/zfs/pull/15107.patch | git -C /usr/main-src/ am --dir=sys/contrib/openzfs -

Re: ZFS deadlock in 14

On 18.08.2023 18:34, Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote: Dag-Erling Smørgrav writes: Plot twist: c47116e909 _without_ the patches also appears to be working fine. The last kernel I know for sure deadlocks is b36f469a15, so I'm going to test cd25b0f740 and 28d2e3b5de. c47116e909 with cd25b0f740 and 28

ZFS deadlock in 14: with ZIL :-)

On 19/08/2023 11:31, Dimitry Andric wrote: On 19 Aug 2023, at 09:36, Graham Perrin wrote: … no ZIL; I never used the feature. The ZIL always exists, but it can be stored on a separate device for performance reasons. See zpoolconc

Re: ZFS deadlock in 14

Dag-Erling Smørgrav writes: > c47116e909 with cd25b0f740 and 28d2e3b5de reverted deadlocks, see > attached ddb.txt. I'm going to see if reverting only 28d2e3b5de but not > cd25b0f740 changes anything. c47116e909 with only 28d2e3b5de reverted also deadlocked, but in both cases it took much longer

Re: ZFS deadlock in 14: without ZIL

On 19 Aug 2023, at 09:36, Graham Perrin wrote: > > On 19/08/2023 00:03, Mark Millard wrote: >> I believe the below quoted messages were reports of deadlocks >> based on after the following 2 MFV being in place in their >> environments: >> >> Thu, 10 Aug 2023 >> . . . >> • git: cd25b0f740f8 -

ZFS deadlock in 14: without ZIL

On 19/08/2023 00:03, Mark Millard wrote: I believe the below quoted messages were reports of deadlocks based on after the following 2 MFV being in place in their environments: Thu, 10 Aug 2023 . . . • git: cd25b0f740f8 - main - zfs: cherry-pick fix from openzfs Martin Matuska • git: 2