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>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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, Alan
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3F4B6EDC.B40E0332>