From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG  Wed Jun 10 23:17:35 2009
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (freefall.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::28])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DDF241065670;
	Wed, 10 Jun 2009 23:17:34 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from jkim@FreeBSD.org)
From: Jung-uk Kim <jkim@FreeBSD.org>
To: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 19:17:23 -0400
User-Agent: KMail/1.6.2
References: <3a142e750906090625r6586f15fn234e539dbbd57e73@mail.gmail.com>
	<3c1674c90906101601q68285c4ehad44dadc0d1a28e5@mail.gmail.com>
	<200906101912.54960.jkim@FreeBSD.org>
In-Reply-To: <200906101912.54960.jkim@FreeBSD.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <200906101917.26977.jkim@FreeBSD.org>
Cc: Kip Macy <kmacy@freebsd.org>
Subject: Re: panic: blockable sleep lock (sleep mutex) 32 @
	/usr/src/sys/vm/uma_core.c:1990
X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current
	<freebsd-current.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>, 
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-current@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 23:17:35 -0000

On Wednesday 10 June 2009 07:12 pm, Jung-uk Kim wrote:
> On Wednesday 10 June 2009 07:01 pm, Kip Macy wrote:
> > A M_WAITOK allocation while holding a lock will do this.
>
> No, it does not because it may be used in interrupt handler context
> with a spin lock held (e.g., GPE handler).

I meant "a M_WAITOK allocation while holding a lock" is not the case 
here.  It is "you shall not malloc(9) while holding a spin lock" 
case.

Jung-uk Kim