From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Feb 10 06:01:11 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BFA8DBD3; Mon, 10 Feb 2014 06:01:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: from esa-jnhn.mail.uoguelph.ca (esa-jnhn.mail.uoguelph.ca [131.104.91.44]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 73D34167B; Mon, 10 Feb 2014 06:01:10 +0000 (UTC) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.95,816,1384318800"; d="scan'208";a="95161725" Received: from muskoka.cs.uoguelph.ca (HELO zcs3.mail.uoguelph.ca) ([131.104.91.222]) by esa-jnhn.mail.uoguelph.ca with ESMTP; 10 Feb 2014 01:01:10 -0500 Received: from zcs3.mail.uoguelph.ca (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by zcs3.mail.uoguelph.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B842B3F85; Mon, 10 Feb 2014 01:01:10 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2014 01:01:10 -0500 (EST) From: Rick Macklem To: Freebsd hackers list Message-ID: <1714012824.3160193.1392012070166.JavaMail.root@uoguelph.ca> Subject: threads getting stuck in vmem_bt_alloc() at "btalloc"? MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [172.17.91.209] X-Mailer: Zimbra 7.2.1_GA_2790 (ZimbraWebClient - FF3.0 (Win)/7.2.1_GA_2790) Cc: Garrett Wollman X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2014 06:01:11 -0000 Hi, I've been doing some testing using pagesize clusters (4K) for NFS instead of mclbytes (2K) on a single core i386. Sometimes I get threads stuck sleeping on "btalloc", which seems to happen in vmem_bt_alloc(). The comment in vmem_bt_alloc() basically says: out of address space or lost a fill race Since this is persistent, I suspect it is the first case? So, does anyone know what is going on here or what I should look at to try and resolve this? Btw, when I am testing, I don't see the pagesize cluster allocation exceed 400, so it doesn't seem to be a leak or excessive allocation. Thanks in advance for any help, rick ps: Garrett, I cc'd you in part because I remember you mentioning something about mclbyte clusters being pre-allocated vs ?? Maybe, you could explain what you were talking about, since I didn't follow it the last time.