From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG  Fri Oct 15 21:43:58 2004
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG>
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 BF9FF16A4CE; Fri, 15 Oct 2004 21:43:58 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from gw.catspoiler.org (217-ip-163.nccn.net [209.79.217.163])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 4A50643D1F; Fri, 15 Oct 2004 21:43:58 +0000 (GMT)
	(envelope-from truckman@FreeBSD.org)
Received: from FreeBSD.org (mousie.catspoiler.org [192.168.101.2])
	by gw.catspoiler.org (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id i9FLhmia082031;
	Fri, 15 Oct 2004 14:43:52 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from truckman@FreeBSD.org)
Message-Id: <200410152143.i9FLhmia082031@gw.catspoiler.org>
Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 14:43:48 -0700 (PDT)
From: Don Lewis <truckman@FreeBSD.org>
To: das@FreeBSD.org
In-Reply-To: <20041015171144.GA69709@VARK.MIT.EDU>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/plain; charset=us-ascii
cc: ache@nagual.pp.ru
cc: current@FreeBSD.org
Subject: Re: Stable panic on shutdown: swapoff: failed to locate N swap
	blocks
X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current
	<freebsd-current.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-current@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 21:43:58 -0000

On 15 Oct, David Schultz wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 15, 2004, Andrey Chernov wrote:
>> N of blocks can be different.
>> Can't provide full debugging trace yet, excepting this one:
> 
> The traceback won't be very helpful in this case because this most
> likely indicates a swap leak that happened some time earlier.
> What *would* be helpful is more information about your swap
> devices, any steps you need to take while the system is running to
> reproduce this, the approximate size of N, etc.

I think a mounted filesystem on a swap-backed md device is likely to
cause this problem.