Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2005 23:31:45 +0200 From: Thierry Herbelot <thierry@herbelot.com> To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Cc: Mike Silbersack <silby@silby.com> Subject: Re: new panics Message-ID: <200506242331.47205.thierry@herbelot.com> In-Reply-To: <20050624155218.D83036@odysseus.silby.com> References: <20050624145923.P83036@odysseus.silby.com> <200506242237.30270.thierry@herbelot.com> <20050624155218.D83036@odysseus.silby.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Le Friday 24 June 2005 22:56, Mike Silbersack a écrit : > > That makes some sense, because we may not be getting around to the > modified memory until we hit some heavy memory usage. Also, one backtrace > showed the panic happening when uma_reclaim was called from the vm pageout > daemon. Sounds like I should throw something in to (optionally) call > uma_reclaim on a regular basis so that we might catch this more quickly. some light coming into the debate ! my test machine is somewhat low on memory (128Megs) and is used "headless", so the memory could only become rare somewhat late in the buildworld process. cheers, TfH
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200506242331.47205.thierry>