Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 20:39:34 -0600 From: Scott Long <scottl@freebsd.org> To: David Schultz <das@freebsd.org> Cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Stable panic on shutdown: swapoff: failed to locate N swap blocks Message-ID: <417089E6.8030105@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <20041016021131.GA72979@VARK.MIT.EDU> References: <20041015075641.GA6820@nagual.pp.ru> <20041015171144.GA69709@VARK.MIT.EDU> <20041015171700.GA74901@nagual.pp.ru> <20041016021131.GA72979@VARK.MIT.EDU>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
David Schultz wrote: > On Fri, Oct 15, 2004, Andrey Chernov wrote: > >>On Fri, Oct 15, 2004 at 01:11:45PM -0400, David Schultz wrote: >> >>>On Fri, Oct 15, 2004, Andrey Chernov wrote: >>> >>>>N of blocks can be different. >>>>Can't provide full debugging trace yet, excepting this one: >>> >>>The traceback won't be very helpful in this case because this most >>>likely indicates a swap leak that happened some time earlier. >>>What *would* be helpful is more information about your swap >>>devices, any steps you need to take while the system is running to >>>reproduce this, the approximate size of N, etc. >> >># swapinfo >>Device 1K-blocks Used Avail Capacity >>/dev/da0s1b 615408 41408 574000 7% >> >>Nothing special to reproduce, it is always reproduced automatically at >>shutdown. > > > You're clearly using some of that swap space for something, so it > would be great if you could narrow it down a bit more. For > instance, does the problem only occur if you shut the system down > after having run particular applications? Are there ever any disk > errors? > > I'll poke around and see if I can find anything by inspection. > phk's rotitilling of the swap subsystem introduced a number of new > nits, but no serious bugs that I can see... > > >>Kernels from Aug 8 and below never do that, I see this panic constantly >>only with most recent kernels (last 2 days). I not test kernels between >>Aug 8 and last 2 days, so can't say anything. > > > The bug was probably introduced earlier, either by me, Alan, or > phk, but the swapoff codepath wasn't routinely exercised until > recently. FWIW, I think that doing a swapoff in the shutdown path is just asking for trouble. Fixing whatever bug this is would of course be nice, but the need for swapoff here is a hack and only opens up up to problems. Scott
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?417089E6.8030105>