Date: Sat, 30 Jan 2010 15:44:33 +0100 From: Marius Strobl <marius@alchemy.franken.de> To: Peter Jeremy <peterjeremy@acm.org> Cc: rmacklem@freebsd.org, dfr@freebsd.org, freebsd-stable@freebsd.org, John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: uma_zalloc_arg complaining about non-sleepable locks Message-ID: <20100130144433.GA99039@alchemy.franken.de> In-Reply-To: <20100127115229.GD40779@alchemy.franken.de> References: <20100126073336.GA1955@server.vk2pj.dyndns.org> <201001260946.44977.jhb@freebsd.org> <20100126183756.GA40779@alchemy.franken.de> <201001261510.59667.jhb@freebsd.org> <20100127063649.GA1889@server.vk2pj.dyndns.org> <20100127115229.GD40779@alchemy.franken.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 12:52:29PM +0100, Marius Strobl wrote: > On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 05:36:49PM +1100, Peter Jeremy wrote: > > On 2010-Jan-26 15:10:59 -0500, John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> wrote: > > >On Tuesday 26 January 2010 1:37:56 pm Marius Strobl wrote: > > >> On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 09:46:44AM -0500, John Baldwin wrote: > > >> > On Tuesday 26 January 2010 2:33:37 am Peter Jeremy wrote: > > >> > > I have just upgraded to 8-STABLE/amd64 from about 18 hours ago and am > > >> > > now getting regular (the following pair of messages about every > > >> > > minute) compaints as follows: > > >> > > > > >> > > kernel: uma_zalloc_arg: zone "mbuf" with the following non-sleepable locks held: > > >> > > kernel: exclusive sleep mutex sp_lock (sp_lock) r = 0 (0xffffff000460bb00) locked @ /usr/src/sys/rpc/svc.c:1098 > > ... > > >> Could you please give the following patch a try? > > >> http://people.freebsd.org/~marius/fha_extract_info_realign2.diff > > > > That seems to have fixed it - I've booted the new kernel and generated > > some NFS activity and am not getting any messages. Also, > > vfs.nfs.realign_test is incrementing nicely though > > vfs.nfs.realign_count remains at zero. > > > > Ah, I forgot that using nfsm_aligned() causes nfs_realign() to > be a NOP on architectures without strict alignment requirements > for performance reasons. That's generally fine but unfortunately > that way you don't actually exercise the code which caused the > problem before (unfortunately I still don't manage to hit the > unaligned case myself). > Could you please test with #ifdef __NO_STRICT_ALIGNMENT replaced > with #if 0 in sys/nfs/nfs_common.h? The vfs.nfs.realign_count > counter should also increase then. > How did that work out? Marius
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20100130144433.GA99039>