On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 2:43 PM, Attilio Rao wrote:
> 2010/8/4 :
>> On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 2:31 PM, John Baldwin 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
2010/8/4 :
> On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 2:31 PM, John Baldwin 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
2010/8/5 John Baldwin :
> On Thursday, August 05, 2010 11:59:37 am m...@freebsd.org wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 11:55 AM, John Baldwin 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 wrote:
>> >> > On Tuesday, A
>> (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 = 0xff
On Thursday, August 05, 2010 11:59:37 am m...@freebsd.org wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 11:55 AM, John Baldwin 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 wrote:
> >> > On Tuesday, August 03, 2010 9:46:16 pm m...
On Thursday, August 05, 2010 12:01:22 pm m...@freebsd.org wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 9:20 AM, wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 2:26 PM, John Baldwin 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 l
On Thu, Aug 05, 2010 at 09:01:22AM -0700, m...@freebsd.org wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 9:20 AM, wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 2:26 PM, John Baldwin 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
On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 9:20 AM, wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 2:26 PM, John Baldwin 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" pc_spinlocks and non-zero for th
On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 11:55 AM, John Baldwin 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 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
On Wednesday, August 04, 2010 12:20:31 pm m...@freebsd.org wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 2:26 PM, John Baldwin 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 wrote:
> >> > On Friday, July 30, 2010 10:08:22 am John Bal
On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 2:26 PM, John Baldwin 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 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 w
On Tuesday, August 03, 2010 9:46:16 pm m...@freebsd.org wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 2:31 PM, John Baldwin 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 witn
On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 2:31 PM, John Baldwin 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 held, but th
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 n
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);
>
2010/7/30 Kostik Belousov :
> On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 04:57:25PM -0700, m...@freebsd.org wrote:
>> On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 4:39 PM, 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
On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 04:57:25PM -0700, m...@freebsd.org wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 4:39 PM, 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
On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 4:39 PM, 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);
> td->td_flags
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
19 matches
Mail list logo
