From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Jun 15 23:18:52 2003 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 0F1D737B401 for ; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 23:18:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp01.syd.iprimus.net.au (smtp01.syd.iprimus.net.au [210.50.30.52]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C54343F93 for ; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 23:18:51 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from tim@robbins.dropbear.id.au) Received: from dilbert.robbins.dropbear.id.au (210.50.251.161) by smtp01.syd.iprimus.net.au (7.0.015) id 3EDD516E003B1C12; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 16:18:50 +1000 Received: by dilbert.robbins.dropbear.id.au (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 328E4C1DB; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 16:09:51 +1000 (EST) Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2003 16:09:51 +1000 From: Tim Robbins To: Chris Shenton Message-ID: <20030616160951.A29962@dilbert.robbins.dropbear.id.au> References: <87of0y3l98.fsf@PECTOPAH.shenton.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i In-Reply-To: <87of0y3l98.fsf@PECTOPAH.shenton.org>; from chris@shenton.org on Sun, Jun 15, 2003 at 08:43:15PM -0400 cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: qmail uses 100% cpu after FreeBSD-5.0 to 5.1 upgrade 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: Mon, 16 Jun 2003 06:18:52 -0000 On Sun, Jun 15, 2003 at 08:43:15PM -0400, Chris Shenton wrote: > I've been running qmail for years and like it, installed pretty much > per www.LifeWithQmail.org. My main system was running FreeBSD > 5.0-RELEASE and -CURRENT and qmail was fine. When I just upgraded to > 5.1-CURRENT a couple days back, the qmail-send process started using > all CPU. This looks like a bug in the named pipe code. Reverting sys/fs/fifofs/fifo_vnops.c to the RELENG_5_0 version makes the problem go away. I haven't tracked down exactly what change between RELENG_5_0 and RELENG_5_1 caused the problem. Tim