On 2017-Mar-13, at 11:52 PM, Mark Millard wrote:
> I'm still at a loss about how to figure out what stages are messed
> up. (Memory coherency? Some memory not swapped out? Bad data swapped
> out? Wrong data swapped in?)
>
> But at least I've found a much smaller/simpler example to demonstrate
>
[Another correction I'm afraid --about alternative program variations
this time.]
On 2017-Mar-13, at 11:52 PM, Mark Millard wrote:
> I'm still at a loss about how to figure out what stages are messed
> up. (Memory coherency? Some memory not swapped out? Bad data swapped
> out? Wrong data swapped
> Are you sure the above transcript is right? There are three reasons
> I'm asking. First, you'll see the "Root mount waiting" message,
> which means the root mount code is, well, waiting for storvsc, exactly
> as expected. Second - there is no "Trying to mount root". But most
> of all - for so
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=213903
--- Comment #17 from Cassiano Peixoto ---
(In reply to Mateusz Guzik from comment #16)
Hi Mateusz,
Sorry but i can't try this patch, i had to rollback the old kernel to avoid
crashes. It's a production server and i can't let it down. :(
-
[This is just a correction to the subject-line text to say arm64
instead of amd64.]
On 2017-Mar-14, at 12:58 AM, Mark Millard wrote:
[Another correction I'm afraid --about alternative program variations
this time.]
On 2017-Mar-13, at 11:52 PM, Mark Millard wrote:
> I'm still at a loss about h
[test_check() between the fork and the wait/sleep prevents the
failure from occurring. Even a small access to the memory at
that stage prevents the failure. Details follow.]
On 2017-Mar-14, at 11:07 AM, Mark Millard wrote:
> [This is just a correction to the subject-line text to say arm64
> inst
On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 03:28:53PM -0700, Mark Millard wrote:
> [test_check() between the fork and the wait/sleep prevents the
> failure from occurring. Even a small access to the memory at
> that stage prevents the failure. Details follow.]
Maybe a stupid question, since you might have written it
On 2017-Mar-14, at 4:44 PM, Bernd Walter wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 03:28:53PM -0700, Mark Millard wrote:
>> [test_check() between the fork and the wait/sleep prevents the
>> failure from occurring. Even a small access to the memory at
>> that stage prevents the failure. Details follow.]
>
Tried building IPFW into my kernel and it failed midway with this:
cc -c -O2 -pipe -fno-strict-aliasing -g -nostdinc -I.
-I/usr/src/sys -I/usr/src/sys/contrib/libfdt -D_KERNEL -DHAVE_
KERNEL_OPTION_HEADERS -include opt_global.h -fno-omit-frame-pointer
-mno-omit-leaf-frame-pointer -MD -MF.depe
A single Byte access to a 4K Byte aligned region between
the fork and wait/sleep/swap-out prevents that specific
4K Byte region from having the (bad) zeros.
Sounds like a page sized unit of behavior to me.
Details follow.
On 2017-Mar-14, at 3:28 PM, Mark Millard wrote:
> [test_check() between
10 matches
Mail list logo
