From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Jun 15 23:22:06 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 E82B637B401 for ; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 23:22:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rage.so36.net (rage.so36.net [212.84.195.131]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5423543FB1 for ; Sun, 15 Jun 2003 23:22:05 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from ths@katjusha.de) Received: (qmail 11551 invoked from network); 16 Jun 2003 06:22:05 -0000 Received: from typhaon.so36.net (212.84.195.42) by rage.so36.net with DES-CBC3-SHA encrypted SMTP; 16 Jun 2003 06:22:05 -0000 Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2003 08:22:01 +0200 (CEST) From: Thorsten Schroeder X-X-Sender: ths@typhaon.so36.net To: current@freebsd.org In-Reply-To: <87of0y3l98.fsf@PECTOPAH.shenton.org> Message-ID: References: <87of0y3l98.fsf@PECTOPAH.shenton.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII 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 06:22:07 -0000 Hi, On Mon, 15 Jun 2003, Chris Shenton wrote: > [...] qmail is run under daemontools and all work fine (the configuration > is 2 years old!), but when I delivery the first mail (localy or remote) > the qmail-send process fire up to 100% of CPU infinitely > > All other mail are right delivery, and the CPU use is the only problem, I > see in qmail-send.c that select() function, after the first message, > allways return 1 same here too. I don't know what it could be - perhaps a problem with named pipes ("lock/trigger")? You can find my ktrace output here: http://cs.so36.net/~ths/kdump.txt Would be nice if anyone have an idea :) > A truss shows me it's running in a tight loop over this code: > close(9) = 0 (0x0) > select(0x9,0xbfbffcbc,0xbfbffc3c,0x0,0xbfbffc24) = 1 (0x1) > Anyone else seen this or know what in FreeBSD-5.1 might have changed to cause > this? Any thoughts on how I might go about diagnosing this any better? greetings, thorsten