From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Oct 26 14:01:00 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 167521065679 for ; Mon, 26 Oct 2009 14:01:00 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jbozza@mindsites.com) Received: from mail.thinkburst.com (mail.thinkburst.com [204.49.104.46]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D8D968FC0A for ; Mon, 26 Oct 2009 14:00:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mailgate.mindsites.net (gateway.mindsites.net [204.49.104.36]) by mail.thinkburst.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2EA331CC27; Mon, 26 Oct 2009 09:00:59 -0500 (CDT) Received: from remote.mindsites.com (unknown [10.1.1.5]) by mailgate.mindsites.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0445C17048; Mon, 26 Oct 2009 09:00:58 -0500 (CDT) Received: from ATLAS.msg.local ([fe80::48f5:88b0:6093:4f67]) by ATLAS.msg.local ([fe80::48f5:88b0:6093:4f67%10]) with mapi; Mon, 26 Oct 2009 09:00:58 -0500 From: Jaime Bozza To: Jacob Myers , Arnaud Houdelette Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2009 09:00:57 -0500 Thread-Topic: Possible scheduler (SCHED_ULE) bug? Thread-Index: AcpWQY+77MX5OvaNRAepTPbFbw1qagAAEG3Q Message-ID: References: <4AE2232E.10406@whotookspaz.org> <4AE59FBE.6060904@tzim.net> <4AE5A631.1030607@whotookspaz.org> In-Reply-To: <4AE5A631.1030607@whotookspaz.org> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "freebsd-stable@freebsd.org" Subject: RE: Possible scheduler (SCHED_ULE) bug? X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2009 14:01:00 -0000 From: Jacob Myers [mailto:jacob@whotookspaz.org] > Arnaud Houdelette wrote: > > I had the same issue using 7.1 amd64, with ZFS, no SMP. > > Not really sure what is the size boundary. I can't really test > either, > > as the machine is remote. > > But I confirm that each tentative upload of certain relatively 'big' > > files (around 1MB) with wordpress hanged the system before I switched > > from sendfile to writev. > > > > I might do some test on amd64 7.2 with no SMP if it can be of any use > ? > > > > Arnaud >=20 > I can confirm it happens without SMP on 7.2 and amd64. If you can give > it a try though, well, the more information the better. Any boundary > information, even approximate (well, mostly testing if 64K is the > boundary or if 1 MB or so is) would probably be good, too. I haven't tested the specific boundaries yet, but I will do that shortly. I *was* able to get a crash dump on the i386 system - Will post the details= shortly. My amd64 system is a test system with ZFS, so I couldn't get a crash dump. = Trying to work around that. On both systems, I used a 72K file (73,688 bytes) to test. Both systems wo= uld "lock up", and then a few seconds later kdb would come up. It wasn't = an immediate thing, at least not on the i386 system. I wasn't able to watc= h the amd64 system since it's too far away to time. Jaime