From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Dec 16 20:36:45 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BAFD6106568B for ; Wed, 16 Dec 2009 20:36:45 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jbozza@mindsites.com) Received: from mail.thinkburst.com (mail.thinkburst.com [204.49.104.46]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 860D38FC08 for ; Wed, 16 Dec 2009 20:36:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mailgate.mindsites.net (gateway.mindsites.net [204.49.104.36]) by mail.thinkburst.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9BC751CC27; Wed, 16 Dec 2009 14:36:44 -0600 (CST) Received: from remote.mindsites.com (unknown [10.1.1.5]) by mailgate.mindsites.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F20017062; Wed, 16 Dec 2009 14:36:44 -0600 (CST) Received: from ATLAS.msg.local ([fe80::48f5:88b0:6093:4f67]) by ATLAS.msg.local ([fe80::48f5:88b0:6093:4f67%10]) with mapi; Wed, 16 Dec 2009 14:36:44 -0600 From: Jaime Bozza To: Jacob Myers Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2009 14:36:43 -0600 Thread-Topic: Possible scheduler (SCHED_ULE) bug? Thread-Index: AcpdWwXx6b071GXPT8egWGy+yZPFQwhNEuZQ Message-ID: References: <4AE2232E.10406@whotookspaz.org> <4AE59FBE.6060904@tzim.net> <4AF18F3A.50804@whotookspaz.org> In-Reply-To: <4AF18F3A.50804@whotookspaz.org> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "freebsd-stable@freebsd.org" , Arnaud Houdelette Subject: RE: Possible scheduler (SCHED_ULE) bug? X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2009 20:36:45 -0000 > From: Jacob Myers [mailto:jacob@whotookspaz.org] > Jaime Bozza wrote: > > From: Arnaud Houdelette [mailto:arnaud.houdelette@tzim.net] > >> I haven't tried larger files - Maybe the boundary is different on amd6= 4? Doing some quick tests > >> right now, I was able to upload a 100MB file without a problem, but th= is is an AMD64 system with > SMP, > >> plus the filesystem is all ZFS, so there are too many things different= . I'll have to setup a > system > >> that closely mirrors the rest of my tests (UFS, ULE, no SMP, etc) befo= re I can say I'm not having a > >> problem there. > >>> Jaime > >>> > >> I had the same issue using 7.1 amd64, with ZFS, no SMP. > >> Not really sure what is the size boundary. I can't really test either, > >> as the machine is remote. > >> But I confirm that each tentative upload of certain relatively 'big' > >> files (around 1MB) with wordpress hanged the system before I switched > >> from sendfile to writev. > >> > >> I might do some test on amd64 7.2 with no SMP if it can be of any use = ? > >> > >> Arnaud > > > > I was able to duplicate the problem on 7.2-STABLE amd64 no SMP - Proble= m didn't seem to happen with > SMP on. While I wasn't able to get a crash dump, the crash looked simila= r. > > > > Jaime > > >=20 > FWIW, there was a fix committed for this: > http://svn.freebsd.org/viewvc/base?view=3Drevision&revision=3D198853 > See if it helps. Sorry for the delay in testing this - Everything seems to be working fine n= ow. I'm not able to force a lockup anymore under the same conditions. T= hanks for the fix! Jaime