Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2005 20:36:36 +0100 (BST) From: Robert Watson <rwatson@FreeBSD.org> To: Peter Wemm <peter@wemm.org> Cc: Perforce Change Reviews <perforce@FreeBSD.org>, Peter Wemm <peter@FreeBSD.org>, John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: PERFORCE change 78828 for review Message-ID: <20050624203602.M42596@fledge.watson.org> In-Reply-To: <200506231604.23036.peter@wemm.org> References: <200506222312.j5MNChMh079831@repoman.freebsd.org> <200506231444.08027.jhb@FreeBSD.org> <200506231604.23036.peter@wemm.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 23 Jun 2005, Peter Wemm wrote: > On Thursday 23 June 2005 11:44 am, John Baldwin wrote: >> On Wednesday 22 June 2005 07:12 pm, Peter Wemm wrote: >>> http://perforce.freebsd.org/chv.cgi?CH=78828 >>> >>> Change 78828 by peter@peter_melody on 2005/06/22 23:12:33 >>> >>> Freeze things for the dump snapshot. >> >> This may be a bad idea since we may panic with sched_lock held and it >> would be very nice to get a dump there and not just deadlock. > > Yeah. I'm really not sure what to do though because with interrupts > still happening, it upsets some of the driver dump routines. eg: when > you call this from ddb. Aren't we supposed to be running with interrupts disabled, and having IPI'd the other processors to stop (along with a barrier to make sure they did), and operating entirely polled? Robert N M Watson
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20050624203602.M42596>