Date: Sat, 30 Aug 1997 21:25:34 +0200 From: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@critter.freebsd.dk> To: Steve Passe <smp@csn.net> Cc: smp@freebsd.org Subject: Re: HEADS UP: another set of changes. Message-ID: <7370.872969134@critter.freebsd.dk> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sat, 30 Aug 1997 12:03:16 MDT." <199708301803.MAA16417@Ilsa.StevesCafe.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <199708301803.MAA16417@Ilsa.StevesCafe.com>, Steve Passe writes: >Hi, > >> >We're at the point where deadlocks are going to become common. Bear with m >e >> >and help as you can. When you hit one please record all the facts you can, >> >and report them to smp@freebsd.org. Hopefully we will get thru this period >> >before too long... >> >> I pressume that we want to instrument simplelock carefully in the >> #ifdef DIAGNOSTIC case ? > >It would be really nice, any one with ideas along that line please speak >up (or go for it!). > >One idea I had was to use the local timer as a watchdog. set it for 10 second >s >going into a simplelock. if your not out by then if fires a high priority >interrupt that causes a panic. the SMP disable_intr() would have to be >reworked a little, and there are probably other areas like ISRs that would >ignore it, but it should help some of the time. Well, I was thinking more about making it a counting semaphore in that case and printf a warning if the count was unexpected. I know for almost for sure that it will trigger in the vfs/vnode stuff because of nested calls. -- Poul-Henning Kamp FreeBSD coreteam member phk@FreeBSD.ORG "Real hackers run -current on their laptop."
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?7370.872969134>