From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Nov 9 12:05:26 2007 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3333216A420 for ; Fri, 9 Nov 2007 12:05:26 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from pieter@degoeje.nl) Received: from smtp.utwente.nl (unknown [IPv6:2001:610:1908:1000:204:23ff:feb7:ef56]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9168513C4D5 for ; Fri, 9 Nov 2007 12:05:25 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from pieter@degoeje.nl) Received: from lux.student.utwente.nl (lux.student.utwente.nl [130.89.170.81]) by smtp.utwente.nl (8.12.10/SuSE Linux 0.7) with ESMTP id lA9C4jYk017159; Fri, 9 Nov 2007 13:04:45 +0100 From: Pieter de Goeje To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2007 13:04:44 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.7 References: <200710131857.46963.pieter@degoeje.nl> <1194457019.35649.82.camel@opus.cse.buffalo.edu> In-Reply-To: <1194457019.35649.82.camel@opus.cse.buffalo.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-15" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200711091304.44766.pieter@degoeje.nl> X-UTwente-MailScanner-Information: Scanned by MailScanner. Contact helpdesk@ITBE.utwente.nl for more information. X-UTwente-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-UTwente-MailScanner-From: pieter@degoeje.nl X-Spam-Status: No Cc: Kostik Belousov , Ken Smith , avleeuwen@piwebs.com, Rolf Witt , Tim Bishop Subject: Re: panic: ffs_blkfree: freeing free block X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 09 Nov 2007 12:05:26 -0000 On Wednesday 07 November 2007, Ken Smith wrote: > On Tue, 2007-10-23 at 11:35 +0200, Arjan van Leeuwen wrote: > > 2007/10/19, Tim Bishop : > > > On Thu, Oct 18, 2007 at 06:40:04PM +0200, Arjan van Leeuwen wrote: > > > > > are softupdates on ? > > > > > > > > > > Yes. Turning them off seems to fix the problem (fingers crossed - I > > > > > > only > > > > > > > > turned it off this morning, didn't have a panic yet) > > > > > > > > After working for a whole day without softupdates, I can say that > > > > > > turning > > > > > > > them off at least causes less panics to happen than with them turned > > > > on, maybe they even don't happen at all without softupdates; I > > > > haven't had a panic all day, while I have one every few hours with > > > > softupdates turned > > > > > > on. > > > > > > I've been running for the best part of a day now with softupdates > > > turned off and so far no panics. I'm running tinderbox on the host, and > > > it would quite reliably crash it before. > > > > > > Of course it's hard to say if this has fixed the problem... maybe it > > > doesn't happen as often, or maybe my data is being slowly chewed up > > > instead ;-) > > > > It looks like on the same system, I'm able to reliably panic zfs as well, > > under the exact same conditions (i.e. linking a particularly big piece of > > software). Maybe this is not a problem in the filesystem at all. I've not > > been able to get a coredump yet from the zfs panic. > > This is in 7.0-PRERELEASE, btw (I switched to RELENG_7 when the branching > > happened). > > Is anyone who had been able to trigger this panic still having problems > with recent kernels (and soft updates turned on)? I've checked with a > few people who had been experiencing the panic and they can no longer > trigger it. > > It's at least a tiny bit possible some of the VM fixes that have gone in > addressed this problem. We'd like to find out if anyone can still > trigger this. I can no longer reproduce it any more. - Pieter