From owner-freebsd-sparc64@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Jun 30 14:45:46 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-sparc64@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 87A53C53 for ; Mon, 30 Jun 2014 14:45:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: from hydra.pix.net (hydra.pix.net [IPv6:2001:470:e254::4]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3BE912F1E for ; Mon, 30 Jun 2014 14:45:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail.distal.com (mail.distal.com [IPv6:2001:470:e24c:200::ae25]) (authenticated bits=0) by hydra.pix.net (8.14.8/8.14.8) with ESMTP id s5UEjbO5095424 for ; Mon, 30 Jun 2014 10:45:44 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from cross+freebsd@distal.com) X-Virus-Status: Clean X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.98.1 at mail.pix.net Received: from zalamar.mm-corp.net ([65.207.51.199]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.distal.com (8.14.8/8.14.8) with ESMTP id s5UEiF6n001185 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO) for ; Mon, 30 Jun 2014 10:44:16 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from cross+freebsd@distal.com) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.1 \(1827\)) Subject: Re: FreeBSD 10-STABLE/sparc64 panic From: Chris Ross In-Reply-To: <7DD7D2DC-A265-40D6-9995-16ABAF79C1FB@distal.com> Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2014 10:40:02 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <20140518083413.GK24043@gradx.cs.jhu.edu> <751F7778-95CE-40FC-857F-222FB37737C0@distal.com> <20140518235853.GM24043@gradx.cs.jhu.edu> <20140519145222.GN24043@gradx.cs.jhu.edu> <20140519193529.GO24043@gradx.cs.jhu.edu> <20140519205047.GP24043@gradx.cs.jhu.edu> <323A3936-DE55-459A-B8AA-CFF463922F22@distal.com> <7DD7D2DC-A265-40D6-9995-16ABAF79C1FB@distal.com> To: freebsd-sparc64@freebsd.org X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1827) X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.4.3 (mail.distal.com [206.138.151.250]); Mon, 30 Jun 2014 10:44:16 -0400 (EDT) X-BeenThere: freebsd-sparc64@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting FreeBSD to the Sparc List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2014 14:45:46 -0000 tl;dr : I=92ve finished my testing and have a result, but see other = things I don=92t understand. Could use more help. On Jun 29, 2014, at 22:46, Chris Ross wrote: > On Jun 20, 2014, at 23:44 , Chris Ross = wrote: >> On Jun 16, 2014, at 14:46 , Chris Ross = wrote: >>> On Jun 9, 2014, at 16:18, Chris Ross = wrote: >>>> On Jun 9, 2014, at 14:13, Chris Ross = wrote: >>>>=20 >>>> Oh well. That was learned quickly. r263478 booted once, but a = second >>>> attempt caused the multiple-boots-before-getting-to-multiuser. So, = moving >>>> right along, I=92ll try r263401 in the more =93binary search=94 = algorithm=85 =20 >>>=20 >>> [...] so I=92m going to try r263407. Mostly zfs changes from = Illumos, but. >>=20 >> r263407 showed no problems. I just rebooted a few times more and see >> no issues. I worry I'm chasing ghosts, but am going to try r263470 = next. >=20 > I ran r263470 for a week or so, with quite a few reboots (7, it = appears). > Never tried more than once to boot successfully. Next, I'm going to = confirm > I still get crashes with a fresh build of r263478. But, there's only = about 1000 > lines of diff between those two revisions, much of it changes to = routing and > related networking code. So, could certainly be it. Easily confirmed. The first attempt to boot an r263478 stable/10 = kernel panic=92d, and there were 10 more boot-and-panic attempts before it successfully booted. http://svnweb.freebsd.org/base?view=3Drevision&sortby=3Ddate&revision=3D26= 3478 I can try manually reverting each of the specified revisions (262763, = 262767, 262771, and 262806) from the code, but I=92d feel better having someone = with deeper knowledge of the networking code and/or sparc64 MD architecture take a closer look at it from here. Anyone available? Kurt, I know you said you saw this on head back in March: = http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-sparc64/2014-March/009261.html ..which looks like it was before (r262669) the things listed above as MFC=92d. And, I see another email from you in 2013 that looks like the = same=20 issue in head r257208. = http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-sparc64/2013-October/009085.htm= l So, I=92m a bit confused. It looks like this goes back much further = than my testing had revealed. But, maybe the things MFC=92d in stable/10 = r263478 either (a) included bits that were also in other revisions, or (b) = provoked the same problem provoked earlier in head, just in a different = way/place. I=92m at a bit of a loss for what to do now, but would really like to = see this get resolved. I don=92t like the fact that numerous of us on the list = have seem this problem, and are having difficulty running machines (v240 only?) because of it. If there=92s anything else I can do, I have a machine that appears to = be behaving semi-consistently with these two revisions of stable/10. I=92m happy to help further. - Chris