Date: Thu, 7 Nov 1996 07:54:29 -0500 (EST) From: Thomas David Rivers <ponds!rivers@dg-rtp.dg.com> To: dg@root.com, ponds!freebsd.org!freebsd-hackers@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU Subject: Re: More info on the daily panics... Message-ID: <199611071254.HAA02561@lakes.water.net>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > I think there is a lot of misinformation being bandied about this problem. > In the one case of this problem that I looked into, it was caused by the > v_usecount being negative. There was clearly one too many vrele's occuring > somewhere. It was not caused by any sort of "freelist wrap" condition. The > patch you've provided will kludge around the problem, but it is not in any > sense a "fix". Each time a vnode is deallocated too many times (and thus > v_usecount goes negative), you'll end up losing all of the vnodes on the > freelist that follow it (potentially several thousand) because the condition > will never go away. This is bad. > > -DG > > David Greenman > Core-team/Principal Architect, The FreeBSD Project Well - in case you missed it - this fix didn't solve my problem after all; I just got a panic: ffs_valloc: dup alloc. So, I'd have to say that the problem I'm experiencing is somehow different than the problem this fix addresses. Also, if v_usecount went negative - wouldn't that only loose one, or a few vnodes (assuming it went to -1), as v_usecount was incremented, wouldn't it return to being positive? Also, since -1 != 0, would that vnode ever be available to be used again? I'm just thinking out loud... Anyway, looks like I'm still wondering if the isclr() bit on the inodes is somehow not getting set... - Dave Rivers -
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199611071254.HAA02561>