Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 13:02:45 +0200 From: Gary Jennejohn <gary.jennejohn@freenet.de> To: Kostik Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com> Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org, Tim Kientzle <kientzle@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: diagnosing freezes (DRI?) Message-ID: <20090417130245.47c8fbe7@ernst.jennejohn.org> In-Reply-To: <20090416191836.GW3014@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> References: <49E74917.808@gmail.com> <20090416185354.4fa01e02@ernst.jennejohn.org> <49E76F4B.8010006@freebsd.org> <20090416191836.GW3014@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 16 Apr 2009 22:18:36 +0300 Kostik Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 10:47:55AM -0700, Tim Kientzle wrote: > > Gary Jennejohn wrote: > > >deeptech71@gmail.com wrote: > > > > > >>This kernel output really looks bad: > > >>Wai > > >>tSiynngc i(nmga xd is6k0s ,s evcnoonddess) rfeomra isnyisntge.m. .pr0o > > >>cess `syncer' to stop...0 done > > > > > >I can't speak to the rest, but this is probably because you have SMP and > > >don't have `options PRINTF_BUFR_SIZE=128' in your kernel config. > > > > Is there any reason this shouldn't be the default? > > > > This is becoming an increasingly common FAQ. > > The only reason I am aware of is that the buffer is allocated on the > stack. 128 bytes is not so small for our kernel stacks. True, but it still seems like this could be put into GENERIC, commented out, with a good comment about stack size, so that users have a reasonable chance of finding out about it. --- Gary Jennejohn
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20090417130245.47c8fbe7>