Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2003 09:29:48 -0500 From: "Alan L. Cox" <alc@imimic.com> To: Mark Tinguely <tinguely@casselton.net> Cc: l.ertl@univie.ac.at Subject: Re: Another pmap related panic Message-ID: <3F4B6EDC.B40E0332@imimic.com> References: <200308261229.h7QCTdwN062563@casselton.net>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
Mark Tinguely wrote: > > It could be a memory problem. Could you also please apply an assert > to pmap_enter_quick() + INVARIANTS. This is a quick test that checks > all the other paths that call pmap_enter_quick() are locked out so > that two processors cannot be using the PADDR1/PMAP1 at the same time. > Neither of Lukas's panics suggests that PADDR1/PMAP1 is being used. The faulting virtual addresses are fault virtual address = 0xbfca1974 and fault virtual address = 0xbfcadf10 which are within the PTmap, not PADDR1. In other words, pmap_pte_quick() concluded that the given pmap was currently active and therefore the pte was accessible through the mapping that each address space has to its own page table. Regards, Alanhome | help
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3F4B6EDC.B40E0332>