From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Mar 29 17:30:40 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 56375106564A for ; Mon, 29 Mar 2010 17:30:40 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jdc@koitsu.dyndns.org) Received: from qmta01.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net (qmta01.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net [76.96.30.16]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3778E8FC16 for ; Mon, 29 Mar 2010 17:30:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: from omta03.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.30.27]) by qmta01.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net with comcast id z0B31d0030b6N64A15Wgtn; Mon, 29 Mar 2010 17:30:40 +0000 Received: from koitsu.dyndns.org ([98.248.46.159]) by omta03.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net with comcast id z5Wf1d00M3S48mS8P5Wgke; Mon, 29 Mar 2010 17:30:40 +0000 Received: by icarus.home.lan (Postfix, from userid 1000) id CBCEA9B419; Mon, 29 Mar 2010 10:30:38 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2010 10:30:38 -0700 From: Jeremy Chadwick To: Masoom Shaikh Message-ID: <20100329173038.GA4969@icarus.home.lan> References: <9bbcef731003280503q4993e5b4ud8d874b8e9c376a9@mail.gmail.com> <9bbcef731003281038x33b8a9atc2a81d22aa26468@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org, freebsd-stable@freebsd.org, Ivan Voras , freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: random FreeBSD panics X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2010 17:30:40 -0000 On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 05:01:02PM +0000, Masoom Shaikh wrote: > On Sun, Mar 28, 2010 at 5:38 PM, Ivan Voras wrote: > > On 28 March 2010 16:42, Masoom Shaikh wrote: > > > >> lets assume if this is h/w problem, then how can other OSes overcome > >> this ? is there a way to make FreeBSD ignore this as well, let it > >> result in reasonable performance penalty. > > > > Very probably, if only we could detect where the problem is. > > Try adding "options     PRINTF_BUFR_SIZE=128" to the kernel > > this option is already there The key word in Ivan's phrase is "less mangled". Neither use of or increasing PRINTF_BUFR_SIZE solves the problem of interspersed console output. I've been ranting/raving about this problem for years now; it truly looks like a mutex lock issue (or lack of such lock), but I've been told numerous times that isn't the case. To developers: what incentives would help get this issue well-needed attention? This problem makes kernel debugging, panic analysis, and other console-oriented viewing basically impossible. -- | Jeremy Chadwick jdc@parodius.com | | Parodius Networking http://www.parodius.com/ | | UNIX Systems Administrator Mountain View, CA, USA | | Making life hard for others since 1977. PGP: 4BD6C0CB |