From owner-freebsd-hackers Mon Oct 20 15:53:40 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id PAA26237 for hackers-outgoing; Mon, 20 Oct 1997 15:53:40 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-hackers) Received: from sax.sax.de (sax.sax.de [193.175.26.33]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id PAA26228 for ; Mon, 20 Oct 1997 15:53:29 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from j@uriah.heep.sax.de) Received: (from uucp@localhost) by sax.sax.de (8.6.12/8.6.12-s1) with UUCP id AAA10385 for hackers@FreeBSD.ORG; Tue, 21 Oct 1997 00:52:57 +0200 Received: (from j@localhost) by uriah.heep.sax.de (8.8.7/8.8.5) id AAA15149; Tue, 21 Oct 1997 00:36:21 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <19971021003621.XE33370@uriah.heep.sax.de> Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 00:36:21 +0200 From: j@uriah.heep.sax.de (J Wunsch) To: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Urge to apply the vn device hack even to 2.2.5 References: <199710201615.KAA29216@rocky.mt.sri.com> <199710202003.WAA06920@adv.IAEhv.nl> X-Mailer: Mutt 0.60_p2-3,5,8-9 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Phone: +49-351-2012 669 X-PGP-Fingerprint: DC 47 E6 E4 FF A6 E9 8F 93 21 E0 7D F9 12 D6 4E Reply-To: joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de (Joerg Wunsch) In-Reply-To: <199710202003.WAA06920@adv.IAEhv.nl>; from Arjan de Vet on Oct 20, 1997 22:03:28 +0200 Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk As Arjan de Vet wrote: > I've done a 'make release' for 2.2-stable at least 5 times last week and I > haven't seen the vn panics either (with 64MB of RAM). Only some ioctl > message, see below. I didn't have an occasion to run a full `make release' after applying Nate's fix within the short time remaining before 2.2.5 is due. However, i've tried to torture the vn device of such a kernel, and haven't seen any ill effect. So i think we are safe with it. Perhaps it's indeed that you've got too much RAM. I remember Mr. KATO telling something about a condition that the lockmgr panic happened whenever something (from the vn object) was about to be paged in or out. So my normal (-current) `make release' machine has 32 MB of RAM (and X11 running by the same time), perhaps that condition is simply more likely then. -- cheers, J"org joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de -- http://www.sax.de/~joerg/ -- NIC: JW11-RIPE Never trust an operating system you don't have sources for. ;-)