From owner-freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Thu Sep 3 16:38:18 2015 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2828E9C978E for ; Thu, 3 Sep 2015 16:38:18 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from mexas@bristol.ac.uk) Received: from mail-wi0-f174.google.com (mail-wi0-f174.google.com [209.85.212.174]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "Google Internet Authority G2" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BA5B880F for ; Thu, 3 Sep 2015 16:38:17 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from mexas@bristol.ac.uk) Received: by wicfx3 with SMTP id fx3so58519556wic.0 for ; Thu, 03 Sep 2015 09:38:15 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:message-id:to:subject:cc:reply-to :in-reply-to; bh=yaVKsU8e9CwQHYNxgLBpc6X8HMhZuTIZqHFnPcM993w=; b=EmnysbneCODJShTaUImQeRFFJeAV49PlJ8GRo02urOksuyyUQODXcVzi5ucMEN7wFy zdQa8/pHljCBUUBNMyDYSe8XI989HZNqH6THRkXoMfqRhTsTaoM/jC4HKB4JPwdaLbyG Pz+hP/hV0S8I6OKjA3+6it6kmRSwNbQkguGUXQdIXSRJ2AACNs4CN9rh68HIAhcrdm+9 10a6g062NeSjbDf5TN9S9HXOT01U51nCDb7CVyfc+VbgCJ6nDzLem9qRwZsNIHT3YAos aHIh7nK/GNgoE07orTok60m3pczkHguO1NrUvABSNS8M4L4i8EEzm/etvHUv8KDy0Juv L/lw== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQk3nME4QTCAbYMLroZMOQxV/f7zXlpVr4oPzVzu4a19GUbIfnLYRGbae8lsk2gqso7xkykP X-Received: by 10.194.84.129 with SMTP id z1mr23404909wjy.17.1441297837704; Thu, 03 Sep 2015 09:30:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mech-as222.men.bris.ac.uk (mech-as222.men.bris.ac.uk. [137.222.170.4]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id pe1sm9771430wic.20.2015.09.03.09.30.36 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 03 Sep 2015 09:30:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mech-as222.men.bris.ac.uk (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mech-as222.men.bris.ac.uk (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id t83GUZLl056952; Thu, 3 Sep 2015 17:30:35 +0100 (BST) (envelope-from mexas@mech-as222.men.bris.ac.uk) Received: (from mexas@localhost) by mech-as222.men.bris.ac.uk (8.15.2/8.15.2/Submit) id t83GUZPr056951; Thu, 3 Sep 2015 17:30:35 +0100 (BST) (envelope-from mexas) Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2015 17:30:35 +0100 (BST) From: Anton Shterenlikht Message-Id: <201509031630.t83GUZPr056951@mech-as222.men.bris.ac.uk> To: marcel@xcllnt.net, mexas@bris.ac.uk Subject: Re: ia64 stable/10 r286316: hang at Entering /boot/kernel/kernel Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org, kostikbel@gmail.com Reply-To: mexas@bris.ac.uk In-Reply-To: <70FA7929-373D-4156-9E10-C9DA845DD7D8@xcllnt.net> X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 03 Sep 2015 16:38:18 -0000 >From marcel@xcllnt.net Thu Sep 3 17:20:42 2015 > >To be clear: with the limits and without my patch you >can=E2=80=99t even boot right? yes, this is right. >> If I remove these, then I can boot. >>=20 >> If I try booting with -s, then I get to a hang at >> "Entering /boot/kernel=E2=80=9D: > >Is this with or without limits? >And is this with or without patch? It seems the patch made no difference. With the limits I cannot boot with or without the patch. Without the limits I can boot with or without the patch. >> /boot/kernel.old/kernel text=3D0x1110710 data=3D0xdfce8+0xa54f8 = >syms=3D[0x8+0xc29e8+0x8+0xb78f6] >> ?[37m?[44mBooting...?[m >> Entering /boot/kernel.old/kernel at 0x9ffc000000010500... >> *********************************************************** >> * ROM Version : 04.29 >> * ROM Date : 11/30/2007 >> * BMC Version : 04.04 > >This is not a hang. This is a machine check. After this line Entering /boot/kernel.old/kernel at 0x9ffc000000010500... The machine is not responding. I've left it for hours, just to be sure. The following line appears only after a power cycle. >> Is it worth investigating what limit value will boot? > >I=E2=80=99m inclined to say that it=E2=80=99s best to remove the limits >altogether and just work with the default. If you need >different default, add them to your kernel configuration. >Set MAXTSIZ, DFLDSIZ, MAXDSIZ, DFLSSIZ and MAXSSIZ >accordingly. > >Since you lower maxdsiz and maxssiz from 1G to 512M, >you can safely leave them as is (unless you tend to have >runaway processes :-) > >You increase maxssiz from 256M to 512M, which you >probably want to keep doing to make sure you can run >the same set of processes as you do now. > >At this point in time, the only fix I=E2=80=99m willing to make >is for the size of the array that holds relocations. If >it made things better, I=E2=80=99ll commit it. If it didn=E2=80=99t, = >then >I=E2=80=99m not going to commit it. No, I don't think it made any difference. >Anything more involved will take more time than I=E2=80=99m >willing to put into ia64 at this time... sure, no problem. Anton