Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2007 08:48:51 +0100 From: Alexander Leidinger <Alexander@Leidinger.net> To: Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org> Cc: freebsd-emulation@FreeBSD.org, rdivacky@FreeBSD.org, Jung-uk Kim <jkim@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: Linux emulation instability Message-ID: <20070307084851.s0o7wx31mo04gwos@webmail.leidinger.net> In-Reply-To: <45EDF4F0.5080605@FreeBSD.org> References: <45EB55DD.4030201@FreeBSD.org> <200703051156.34866.jkim@FreeBSD.org> <45ECA90E.3050202@FreeBSD.org> <200703051900.22022.jkim@FreeBSD.org> <45ECB049.8070304@FreeBSD.org> <20070306092828.h6klpijtomcogc0w@webmail.leidinger.net> <45EDF4F0.5080605@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Quoting Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org> (from Tue, 06 Mar 2007 =20 15:10:40 -0800): > Alexander Leidinger wrote: >> Quoting Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org> (from Mon, 05 Mar 2007 =20 >> 16:05:29 -0800): >> >>> compat.linux.osrelease: 2.4.2 >>> >>> Based on your description, and the fact that you're running with >>> ULE+libthr but with UP, I'd be pretty comfortable saying an SMP problem >>> is "likely" at this point. If someone wants to come up with some >>> patches that will likely help the futex+SMP problem, I'll be glad to >>> test them. Otherwise further testing on my part will have to wait till >>> I get some more spare cycles. >> >> I would be surprised if 2.6.x features like futexes are used with =20 >> 2.4.2. We don't disable futexes with 2.4.2, but some 2.6.x features =20 >> are disabled and the glibc of linux_base-fc4 doesn't switch to =20 >> using 2.6.x features when osrelease is set to 2.4.2. Additionally =20 >> futexes are not fully implemented on amd64 (at least not in HEAD). >> >> Also you should not focus on libthr, as it is not used for linux stuff. > > Thanks for clearing that up. Would switching to a different linux_base > port, and/or setting compat.linux.osrelease to something else be a There are two possibilities for osrelease in our kernel. The default =20 and some 2.6.x value. In the Linux glibc as used in our default =20 linux_base port there may be other possibilites. Depending on =20 osrelease the glibc makes use of different syscalls. I don't know if using a different linux_base port would give us an =20 useful hint what is going on. At least it would narrow it down to =20 glibc (or some other lib). > useful exercise? This is thunderbird 2.0b2, so it may be expecting 2.6 > stuff that we're not giving it, which may be why it's crashing. You should see a panic string, as Roman has some KASSERTs for this =20 case. I'm not sure if this covers everything. Roman? >> It would be interesting to know where linux-thunderbird locks up. =20 >> With a ktrace and maybe the output of linuxulator debugging =20 >> messages we may be able to narrow this down to the real problem. > > Ok, ktrace I can handle, what kind of debugging needs to be set for the > linuxulator? You can't use the FreeBSD kdump, you have to use linux_kdump. A =20 package is available at http://www.Leidinger.net/FreeBSD/ for i386 =20 (you need a different linux_base port than the default to compile it). Set compat.linux.debug=3Dall, you have to compile (the module) with =20 -DDEBUG to get it. Bye, Alexander. --=20 Hi Jimbo. Dennis. Really appreciate the help on the income tax. You wanna help on the audit now? http://www.Leidinger.net Alexander @ Leidinger.net: PGP ID =3D B0063FE7 http://www.FreeBSD.org netchild @ FreeBSD.org : PGP ID =3D 72077137
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20070307084851.s0o7wx31mo04gwos>