From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Apr 12 22:10:33 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org 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 6F63716A400; Wed, 12 Apr 2006 22:10:33 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from csaba@beastie.creo.hu) Received: from beastie.creo.hu (www.creo.hu [217.113.62.14]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9912A43D46; Wed, 12 Apr 2006 22:10:32 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from csaba@beastie.creo.hu) Received: from beastie.creo.hu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by beastie.creo.hu (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id k3CMA3OY069076 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 13 Apr 2006 00:10:03 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from csaba@beastie.creo.hu) Received: (from csaba@localhost) by beastie.creo.hu (8.13.4/8.13.4/Submit) id k3CMA3Xb069074; Thu, 13 Apr 2006 00:10:03 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from csaba) Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2006 00:10:03 +0200 From: Csaba Henk To: John Baldwin Message-ID: <20060412221003.GB10078@beastie.creo.hu> References: <200604121103.32647.jhb@freebsd.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200604121103.32647.jhb@freebsd.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org, davidxu@freebsd.org Subject: Re: panic: Assertion !(curthread->td_flags & TDF_SINTR) failed X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 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: Wed, 12 Apr 2006 22:10:33 -0000 On Wed, Apr 12, 2006 at 11:03:30AM -0400, John Baldwin wrote: > The sleepq_remove() in msleep() to handle this nested sleep case isn't > clearing the TDF_SINTR from the previous tsleep. I suspect this changed > in the recent fixes as I think they changed the sleepqueue code to clear > TDF_SINTR when the thread resumed, rather than clearing it when the thread > was removed from the queue IIRC. Thanks for the info. I don't plan to update my system recently, so I can't confirm if it really has been fixed, but anyone who has a fresh enough system can give it a try. Regards, Csaba