Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 13:25:22 +0200 From: Andriy Gapon <avg@FreeBSD.org> To: hartzell@alerce.com Cc: freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Help with filing a [maybe] ZFS/mmap bug. Message-ID: <5284B322.1070806@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <21055.33473.385334.574140@gargle.gargle.HOWL> References: <20967.760.95825.310085@gargle.gargle.HOWL> <51E80B30.1090004@FreeBSD.org> <20968.10645.880772.30501@gargle.gargle.HOWL> <520202E5.30300@FreeBSD.org> <21055.33473.385334.574140@gargle.gargle.HOWL>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
on 23/09/2013 02:52 George Hartzell said the following: > This weekend I built up a system using the 10.0 beta 2 dvd, then > updated /usr/src from head. > > I grabbed a fresh copy of your patch this afternoon. > > I applied your patch with no problems. I was unable to build a new > kernel though, you have one reference to m->busy, where m is a > vm_page_t (if I remember correctly). I dug around a bit and decided > that you meant m->busy_lock, which let me build a usable kernel. > > It looks like INVARIANTS and INVARIANT_SUPPORT are included in the > GENERIC conf file. > > I ran through my test routine with the original system and was able to > reproduce the problem. > > After building and installing a kernel with your patch I was still > able to trigger the problem. If anything it was worse (sample size = > 1, I know...). > > I did not see any interesting output in /var/log/messages or to the > console or anywhere else obvious. > > I'm not sure what to do next. It's likely that my m->busy to > m->busy_lock change was not The Right Thing to Do and might have > invalidated what the patch was trying to do. > > In any case, I now have a system running HEAD and should be able to > test things more easily. George, thank you very much for the test! And sorry for the "delay" with my reply. I was out of new ideas at first and then very busy. But now Steve has woken me up :-) The busy -> busy_lock change was not entirely correct, but it is pretty harmless. I will probably commit the putpages patch anyway soon. But your test confirms that the pageout logic was not related to the bug. I think I now have an idea of what could be wrong. I will follow up in the other thread. -- Andriy Gapon
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?5284B322.1070806>