From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Aug 11 17:36:23 2011 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 EA449106566B for ; Thu, 11 Aug 2011 17:36:23 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from avg@FreeBSD.org) Received: from citadel.icyb.net.ua (citadel.icyb.net.ua [212.40.38.140]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 402E98FC1B for ; Thu, 11 Aug 2011 17:36:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: from porto.starpoint.kiev.ua (porto-e.starpoint.kiev.ua [212.40.38.100]) by citadel.icyb.net.ua (8.8.8p3/ICyb-2.3exp) with ESMTP id UAA18950; Thu, 11 Aug 2011 20:36:20 +0300 (EEST) (envelope-from avg@FreeBSD.org) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]) by porto.starpoint.kiev.ua with esmtp (Exim 4.34 (FreeBSD)) id 1QrZB6-000KYv-GH; Thu, 11 Aug 2011 20:36:20 +0300 Message-ID: <4E441314.6060606@FreeBSD.org> Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2011 20:36:20 +0300 From: Andriy Gapon User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:5.0) Gecko/20110706 Thunderbird/5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Steven Hartland References: <47F0D04ADF034695BC8B0AC166553371@multiplay.co.uk><4E4380C0.7070908@FreeBSD.org> <4E43E272.1060204@FreeBSD.org> <62BF25D0ED914876BEE75E2ADF28DDF7@multiplay.co.uk> <4E440865.1040500@FreeBSD.org> <6F08A8DE780545ADB9FA93B0A8AA4DA1@multiplay.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <6F08A8DE780545ADB9FA93B0A8AA4DA1@multiplay.co.uk> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.2pre Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: debugging frequent kernel panics on 8.2-RELEASE 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: Thu, 11 Aug 2011 17:36:24 -0000 on 11/08/2011 20:14 Steven Hartland said the following: > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Andriy Gapon" > >>>> I would really appreciate if you could try to reproduce the >>>> problem with the patch that I sent earlier. >>> >>> Hi Andriy, what's the risk of this patch causing other issues? >> >> I can not estimate. >> The code is supposed to affect only things that happen after panic, >> so make your guess. > > So in theory should be good. > >>> I ask as to get results from this we've going to have to roll it >>> out to over 130+ production machines, so I'd like to be clear on >>> the risks before I sign that off. >> >> I will be happy if you try the patch on a single machine >> provided the problem is that reproducible. > > Unfortunately although its happening a lot its taking the > large numbers of machines to make it that way. > > Over the 130+ machines we're seeing between 3 and 8 panics > a day, so based on that we could be waiting quite some time > for a specific machine to panic :( > > Don't think we're going to make any progress on this in the current > state so I think we'll give it a shot. Maybe test it on couple of machines first just in case I overlooked something essential, although I have a report from another use that the patch didn't break anything for him (it was tested for an unrelated issue). -- Andriy Gapon