From owner-freebsd-sparc64@FreeBSD.ORG Tue May 13 22:28:02 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-sparc64@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 165F0780 for ; Tue, 13 May 2014 22:28:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pulque.ecks.ca (pulque.ecks.ca [208.79.218.152]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E0D75257A for ; Tue, 13 May 2014 22:28:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: from tlalocan.teotlalli.ecks.ca (tlalocan.teotlalli.ecks.ca [IPv6:2001:470:1d:758:215:60ff:feed:b71d]) by pulque.ecks.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id D51C8E8038 for ; Tue, 13 May 2014 18:27:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: from quetzalcoatl.teotlalli.ecks.ca (quetzalcoatl.teotlalli.ecks.ca [IPv6:2001:470:1d:758:ae22:bff:fe50:febb]) by tlalocan.teotlalli.ecks.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 23CE214221E for ; Tue, 13 May 2014 18:27:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: by quetzalcoatl.teotlalli.ecks.ca (Postfix, from userid 1981) id 0FBC182D52; Tue, 13 May 2014 18:27:59 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 13 May 2014 18:27:58 -0400 From: Eric Benoit To: freebsd-sparc64@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD 10-STABLE/sparc64 panic Message-ID: <53729c6e.TPfWjfi8cU4wuT0E%eric@ecks.ca> References: <536fdecc.JQrHYQJDeuWX7GXM%eric@ecks.ca> <8E36E49D-CD77-4B61-9BB4-A51109297E22@distal.com> <537092a9.hwZcQEw68NSGutSo%eric@ecks.ca> <687CCD82-F111-4285-A734-F006C135B5A6@distal.com> <53718e80.Tof6MSA85MMTLCRr%eric@ecks.ca> In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Heirloom mailx 12.5 7/5/10 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: freebsd-sparc64@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting FreeBSD to the Sparc List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 13 May 2014 22:28:02 -0000 Just to clarify for the list, this particular issue is concerning a panic as reported a while back on this list. Specifically: spin lock 0xc0c63f30 (smp rendezvous) held by 0xfffff80003a70920 (tid 100059) too long timeout stopping cpus panic: spin lock held too long cpuid = 1 KDB: stack backtrace: #0 0xc05214f0 at _mtx_lock_spin_failed+0x50 #1 0xc05215b8 at _mtx_lock_spin_cookie+0xb8 #2 0xc088999c at tick_get_timecount_mp+0xdc #3 0xc054379c at binuptime+0x3c #4 0xc085366c at timercb+0x6c #5 0xc0889d00 at tick_intr+0x220 > > It should be noted that of course 10-STABLE on amd64 is fine, and > > also on a V100, which is of course uniprocessor. > Still with a bge? I'm suspecting it's related to the bge, but as > you note, it could just be network subsystem in general. No, the V100 has a pair of dc interfaces. I tried pulling the network cable and that had it come up without issue. I then tried hooking up a an offboard bge NIC, and that worked in that I was able to configure that manually with dhclient, etc. I turned on rc_debug to get an idea where it was failing, which seemed to be after bringing up bge0. I saw mention of ipv6_activate_all_interfaces which I haven't set, and indeed: bge0: flags=8843 metric 0 mtu 1500 nd6 options=23 bge1: flags=8802 metric 0 mtu 1500 nd6 options=29 I stopped the local router advertisement daemon briefly, and tested using the original setup. Sure enough it came up as expected, minus a global IPv6 address (and routing). It seems like it may be an issue with accepting IPv6 router advertisements, at least when the system is first coming up. Once fully booted it seems fine. Any ideas on how to proceed?