From owner-freebsd-hackers Thu Feb 25 3:29:36 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from feral.com (feral.com [192.67.166.1]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 48F5A14D32 for ; Thu, 25 Feb 1999 03:29:34 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from mjacob@feral.com) Received: from localhost (mjacob@localhost) by feral.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id DAA28307; Thu, 25 Feb 1999 03:28:54 -0800 Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 03:28:54 -0800 (PST) From: Matthew Jacob X-Sender: mjacob@feral-gw Reply-To: mjacob@feral.com To: Matthew Dillon Cc: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Panic in FFS/4.0 as of yesterday - update In-Reply-To: <199902251009.CAA02488@apollo.backplane.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Yow! Indeed that would bung things up. I like also what you said about getnewbuf shouldn't be converting to async writes. Sounds like real good progress is happening here. I'll be back tonight and as sooon as folks are happy with some patches, I'll throw somwe big iron on the testing. On Thu, 25 Feb 1999, Matthew Dillon wrote: > Ah. It looks like the numfreebuffers accounting is messed up as well. > I had a lockup with processes sitting in 'newbuf' after I added a hard > check/sleep based on 'numfreebuffers'. > > test2:/home/dillon> sysctl -a | fgrep buffers > vfs.numdirtybuffers: 149 > vfs.lodirtybuffers: 95 > vfs.hidirtybuffers: 191 > vfs.numfreebuffers: 16715 <----- actually, there were none > vfs.lofreebuffers: 81 > vfs.hifreebuffers: 162 > > That could account for quite a bit, actually. It means getblk() wouldn't > block when it should. > > -Matt > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message