From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Oct 16 02:48:46 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 3C77416A4CE; Sat, 16 Oct 2004 02:48:46 +0000 (GMT) Received: from nagual.pp.ru (pobrecita.freebsd.ru [194.87.13.42]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 785AE43D3F; Sat, 16 Oct 2004 02:48:45 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from ache@pobrecita.freebsd.ru) Received: from pobrecita.freebsd.ru (ache@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nagual.pp.ru (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id i9G2mgrN050593; Sat, 16 Oct 2004 06:48:42 +0400 (MSD) (envelope-from ache@pobrecita.freebsd.ru) Received: (from ache@localhost) by pobrecita.freebsd.ru (8.13.1/8.13.1/Submit) id i9G2mg4k050591; Sat, 16 Oct 2004 06:48:42 +0400 (MSD) (envelope-from ache) Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2004 06:48:41 +0400 From: Andrey Chernov To: Scott Long Message-ID: <20041016024840.GA50424@nagual.pp.ru> Mail-Followup-To: Andrey Chernov , Scott Long , David Schultz , current@freebsd.org References: <20041015075641.GA6820@nagual.pp.ru> <20041015171144.GA69709@VARK.MIT.EDU> <20041015171700.GA74901@nagual.pp.ru> <20041016021131.GA72979@VARK.MIT.EDU> <417089E6.8030105@freebsd.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <417089E6.8030105@freebsd.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6i X-AntiVirus: checked by AntiVir Milter 1.1-beta; AVE 6.28.0.7; VDF 6.28.0.20 (host: pobrecita.freebsd.ru) cc: David Schultz 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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2004 02:48:46 -0000 On Fri, Oct 15, 2004 at 08:39:34PM -0600, Scott Long wrote: > FWIW, I think that doing a swapoff in the shutdown path is just asking > for trouble. Fixing whatever bug this is would of course be nice, but > the need for swapoff here is a hack and only opens up up to problems. I agree. It looks like sort of race happens. Application (cvsupd) can be killed, but its inodes activity delayed by softupdates a bit more (just raw guess). I see no useful purpose to call swapoff(8) at shutdown stage, correct me, if I am not right. -- Andrey Chernov | http://ache.pp.ru/