RE: Panics instead of Hard Locks

2002-11-11 Thread John Baldwin
On 09-Nov-2002 Joel M. Baldwin wrote: > > Since going from a SMP to nonSMP kernel the Hard Locks don't > seem to be happening. However I'm getting panics. > > I've gotten 4 'sleeping thread owns a mutex' panics and one each > of 'Assertion i != 0 failed at ../../../kern/subr_witness.c:669' > an

Re: Panics instead of Hard Locks

2002-11-10 Thread Joel M. Baldwin
If there's a race why hasn't it been fixed in the main tree? A swap issue makes sense. If I've been down long enough I get swamped with email when I come back up. A bug in the latest procmail yields 130M processes that fill up swap and make the system be swap bound. The solution is the followi

Re: Panics instead of Hard Locks

2002-11-10 Thread Tor . Egge
> > Since going from a SMP to nonSMP kernel the Hard Locks don't > seem to be happening. However I'm getting panics. > > I've gotten 4 'sleeping thread owns a mutex' panics and one each > of 'Assertion i != 0 failed at ../../../kern/subr_witness.c:669' > and 'Duplicate free of item 0xc3895cc0 fr

Panics instead of Hard Locks

2002-11-09 Thread Joel M. Baldwin
Since going from a SMP to nonSMP kernel the Hard Locks don't seem to be happening. However I'm getting panics. I've gotten 4 'sleeping thread owns a mutex' panics and one each of 'Assertion i != 0 failed at ../../../kern/subr_witness.c:669' and 'Duplicate free of item 0xc3895cc0 from zone 0xc0ea