From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Jul 3 22:34:12 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D69CE16A4CF for ; Sat, 3 Jul 2004 22:34:12 +0000 (GMT) Received: from root.org (root.org [67.118.192.226]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id A1D9E43D48 for ; Sat, 3 Jul 2004 22:34:12 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from nate@root.org) Received: (qmail 65651 invoked by uid 1000); 3 Jul 2004 22:34:13 -0000 Date: Sat, 3 Jul 2004 15:34:13 -0700 (PDT) From: Nate Lawson To: Jon Noack In-Reply-To: <40E662D5.8070009@alumni.rice.edu> Message-ID: <20040703153337.U65630@root.org> References: <20040703000302.T58868@root.org> <40E662D5.8070009@alumni.rice.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: LoR in slab allocator and swapper X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 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: Sat, 03 Jul 2004 22:34:13 -0000 On Sat, 3 Jul 2004, Jon Noack wrote: > On 07/03/04 02:04, Nate Lawson wrote: > > Just in case no one has reported this one: > > > > [...] > > lock order reversal > > 1st 0xc1a31108 vm object (vm object) @ /usr/src/sys/vm/swap_pager.c:1313 > > 2nd 0xc08c6300 swap_pager swhash (swap_pager swhash) @ /usr/src/sys/vm/swap_pager.c:1799 > > 3rd 0xc103fce4 vm object (vm object) @ /usr/src/sys/vm/uma_core.c:923 > > Yeah, it's been reported a few dozen times. It's a false positive and > is harmless. See #1 on the LOR status page: > http://sources.zabbadoz.net/freebsd/lor.html > > We're working on getting a new FAQ entry for LORs > (http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=68595) which will have a > pointer to the LOR status page given above. Once this is done, the idea > is to update the lock order reversal message to point to this FAQ entry > so we can better educate users on LORs and eliminate people reporting > the same LOR tons of times. Thanks, that's a good summary. A better thing would be to add this to the static WITNESS ordering so it knows that combination is ok. -Nate