Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 14:43:09 +0200 From: Ivan Voras <ivoras@freebsd.org> To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Kernel panic on PowerEdge 1950 under certain stress load Message-ID: <fdavot$eic$1@sea.gmane.org> In-Reply-To: <46F8D12E.7060202@FreeBSD.org> References: <c53be070709211526j2178ebb7ia6ea39e1a5df303c@mail.gmail.com> <fd84qf$ejl$1@sea.gmane.org> <c53be070709240842h6875d45ct761d0fa5790f70e2@mail.gmail.com> <46F8D12E.7060202@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156) --------------enig84A152B62A6A8ADA5CD0A085 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Kris Kennaway wrote: > Does it really? i.e. did you compare the function names in detail and=20 > find that they match precisely, or do you just mean "they are both=20 > panics of some description and I dunno what it all means"? :) I ask=20 > because the linked trace does not involve a spinlock, which means it=20 > cannot be precisely the same trace. Isn't spinning and waiting "adaptive"? (AFAIK some locks spin for a=20 short while before they wait). At least, that's why I thought they might = be the same problem. --------------enig84A152B62A6A8ADA5CD0A085 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with SUSE - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFG+QJdldnAQVacBcgRAxgsAJ9hH+MtE+RuOOng5ryMcuE8RLqKigCgnK1g wwvIezHzeSTZewZxc+z/3M8= =65wF -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------enig84A152B62A6A8ADA5CD0A085--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?fdavot$eic$1>