From owner-freebsd-threads@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Nov 16 10:22:21 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-threads@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 57A2316A4CE; Sun, 16 Nov 2003 10:22:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from ns1.xcllnt.net (209-128-86-226.BAYAREA.NET [209.128.86.226]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6275743F85; Sun, 16 Nov 2003 10:22:20 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from marcel@xcllnt.net) Received: from dhcp01.pn.xcllnt.net (dhcp01.pn.xcllnt.net [192.168.4.201]) by ns1.xcllnt.net (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id hAGIMKbe051480; Sun, 16 Nov 2003 10:22:20 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from marcel@piii.pn.xcllnt.net) Received: from dhcp01.pn.xcllnt.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) hAGIMJbH060485; Sun, 16 Nov 2003 10:22:19 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from marcel@dhcp01.pn.xcllnt.net) Received: (from marcel@localhost) by dhcp01.pn.xcllnt.net (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id hAGIMJdk060484; Sun, 16 Nov 2003 10:22:19 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from marcel) Date: Sun, 16 Nov 2003 10:22:19 -0800 From: Marcel Moolenaar To: deischen@freebsd.org Message-ID: <20031116182219.GB60377@dhcp01.pn.xcllnt.net> References: <20031115193039.GA55917@dhcp01.pn.xcllnt.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.4i cc: threads@freebsd.org cc: davidxu@freebsd.org Subject: Re: KSE/ia64 broken X-BeenThere: freebsd-threads@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Threading on FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 16 Nov 2003 18:22:21 -0000 On Sun, Nov 16, 2003 at 12:18:33PM -0500, Daniel Eischen wrote: > > Are you sure there's not an ia64 kernel bug or ia64 context > restoring bug? There's nothing pointing in that direction yet. I keep thinking that the case is related to having TP per thread on ia64, while it's per KSE on i386. > The critical region may be the malloc spinlock being held > and the reason it blocked perhaps due to a page fault. Is > it possible that the blocked context is incorrectly marked, > or that it is just not being resumed properly? The likelylood that it's incorrectly marked is larger than the likelyhood that it's improperly resumed. -- Marcel Moolenaar USPA: A-39004 marcel@xcllnt.net