Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 11:19:22 -0700 From: "Jack Vogel" <jfvogel@gmail.com> To: "Jeremie Le Hen" <jeremie@le-hen.org> Cc: Doug Barton <dougb@freebsd.org>, freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [fbsd] Re: em(4) watchdog timeout Message-ID: <2a41acea0607251119i33176020pfc4183ecd2251dd2@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20060725124328.GI6253@obiwan.tataz.chchile.org> References: <20060721123448.GV6253@obiwan.tataz.chchile.org> <44C1CE73.7030200@FreeBSD.org> <20060725124328.GI6253@obiwan.tataz.chchile.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 7/25/06, Jeremie Le Hen <jeremie@le-hen.org> wrote: > On Sat, Jul 22, 2006 at 12:06:27AM -0700, Doug Barton wrote: > > Jeremie Le Hen wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > I am running a two month old current (dated from May 24) > > > > SOP with -current is that before you submit a bug report for a system this > > old you should upgrade to the latest world and kernel. Two months is > > _really_ old in -current terms. > > I am rebuilding a fresher one right now. According to Ian's post, > the problem is likely to remain. What do you advice me to do to > track this down ? > > FYI, my -CURRENT kernel (as well userland) is patched with ProPolice. > I don't think this can lead to this kind of problem, the overhead is > really small, in an order of 3 percent. Do you think such an > overhead in a time-critial path could trigger a watchdog timeout ? Well, watchdogs ARE about timeouts :) I know nothing about ProPolice but would suggest removing for a test and see if the problem goes away. As for the debug_info and stats data you sent, there was nothing that looked bad in it, but those are more of a dynamic tool, its when the problem occurs that this will possibly show why.... I know, it doesnt make it easy :( Jack
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?2a41acea0607251119i33176020pfc4183ecd2251dd2>