Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2007 10:07:09 +0100 From: Divacky Roman <xdivac02@stud.fit.vutbr.cz> To: Alexander Leidinger <Alexander@Leidinger.net> Cc: freebsd-emulation@freebsd.org, rdivacky@freebsd.org, Jung-uk Kim <jkim@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Linux emulation instability Message-ID: <20070307090709.GA41745@stud.fit.vutbr.cz> In-Reply-To: <20070307084851.s0o7wx31mo04gwos@webmail.leidinger.net> 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> <20070307084851.s0o7wx31mo04gwos@webmail.leidinger.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Mar 07, 2007 at 08:48:51AM +0100, Alexander Leidinger wrote: > Quoting Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org> (from Tue, 06 Mar 2007 > 15:10:40 -0800): > > >Alexander Leidinger wrote: > >>Quoting Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org> (from Mon, 05 Mar 2007 > >>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 > >>2.4.2. We don't disable futexes with 2.4.2, but some 2.6.x features > >> are disabled and the glibc of linux_base-fc4 doesn't switch to > >>using 2.6.x features when osrelease is set to 2.4.2. Additionally > >>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 > and some 2.6.x value. In the Linux glibc as used in our default > linux_base port there may be other possibilites. Depending on > osrelease the glibc makes use of different syscalls. as I was corrected by netbsd guys this might be PER PROCESS and doesnt depend directly on setting of osversion... if you set $LD_ASSUME_VERSION to 2.6 it will use NPTL for a given process even if you dont have osversion=2.6 > I don't know if using a different linux_base port would give us an > useful hint what is going on. At least it would narrow it down to > glibc (or some other lib). panics happen in kernel. no matter what evil glibc might do we CANNOT panic > >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 > case. I'm not sure if this covers everything. Roman? I guess.... > >>It would be interesting to know where linux-thunderbird locks up. > >>With a ktrace and maybe the output of linuxulator debugging > >>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 > package is available at http://www.Leidinger.net/FreeBSD/ for i386 > (you need a different linux_base port than the default to compile it). > > Set compat.linux.debug=all, you have to compile (the module) with > -DDEBUG to get it. I am most interestd in the panic backtrace... doug, can you please try to run the thunderbird remotely over X? ie. we see the panic. without it it can be basically anything :(
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20070307090709.GA41745>