Date: Mon, 19 May 2014 10:52:22 -0400 From: Nathaniel W Filardo <nwf@cs.jhu.edu> To: Chris Ross <cross+freebsd@distal.com> Cc: freebsd-sparc64@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD 10-STABLE/sparc64 panic Message-ID: <20140519145222.GN24043@gradx.cs.jhu.edu> In-Reply-To: <20140518235853.GM24043@gradx.cs.jhu.edu> References: <20140518083413.GK24043@gradx.cs.jhu.edu> <751F7778-95CE-40FC-857F-222FB37737C0@distal.com> <20140518235853.GM24043@gradx.cs.jhu.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--Ie5iOtK4e9kgqh2F Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sun, May 18, 2014 at 07:58:53PM -0400, Nathaniel W Filardo wrote: > On Sun, May 18, 2014 at 01:06:41PM -0400, Chris Ross wrote: > > Nathaniel, I assume you saw Eric's email saying he'd narrowed it down= to > > r263478? If that's accurate, it links it to four revisions from head. = So, that > > is a big head start on the bisection... I'd think r262763 is the obvio= us candidate > > of the four mentioned, as it's the only big one. At that point we'll n= eed someone > > pretty familiar with the networking parts of the kernel and sparc64, an= d I'm > > certain I can't fill that role. >=20 > Indeed. After staring at the changes for a while and getting nowhere, on= a > whim, I removed everything of substance in that commit in a new build of = the > head of stable/10 branch (that is, I nuked all the counter_* calls and > renamed the counter entry so that I was sure I didn't miss any) and it st= ill > panic()d in the same way. Nothing else looks like it could possibly > manipulate spinlocks, so just to be sure I'm re-bisecting. If this > bisection yields the same result, I'll probably try diffing the generated > assembler, but I'm not sure what I expect to see from that. I am having trouble bisecting, and it's slow going, but I should report that a clean build of dbd9b17 (r262853), which is well before 03fdc293 (r263478) -- also exhibits this problem. I believe 04e37d68 also problematic, just in case anyone else is out there looking, but I may have flubbed testing that one. Will report back soon. --nwf; --Ie5iOtK4e9kgqh2F Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 iEYEARECAAYFAlN6GqUACgkQTeQabvr9Tc8NUQCfRJM+Gtpa0LfHSaUyML+AVZxN ISUAnRJlllYTBIbVLsreAXISaYGbFl1Y =52m5 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Ie5iOtK4e9kgqh2F--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20140519145222.GN24043>