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>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
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, TfHhome | help
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200506242331.47205.thierry>