Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 19:54:52 +0200 From: Kris Kennaway <kris@FreeBSD.org> To: Ivan Voras <ivoras@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Kernel panic on PowerEdge 1950 under certain stress load Message-ID: <46F94B6C.2090107@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <fdavot$eic$1@sea.gmane.org> References: <c53be070709211526j2178ebb7ia6ea39e1a5df303c@mail.gmail.com> <fd84qf$ejl$1@sea.gmane.org> <c53be070709240842h6875d45ct761d0fa5790f70e2@mail.gmail.com> <46F8D12E.7060202@FreeBSD.org> <fdavot$eic$1@sea.gmane.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Ivan Voras wrote: > Kris Kennaway wrote: > >> Does it really? i.e. did you compare the function names in detail and >> find that they match precisely, or do you just mean "they are both >> panics of some description and I dunno what it all means"? :) I ask >> because the linked trace does not involve a spinlock, which means it >> cannot be precisely the same trace. > > Isn't spinning and waiting "adaptive"? (AFAIK some locks spin for a > short while before they wait). At least, that's why I thought they might > be the same problem. Not in the sense of transmuting a sleep mutex into a spin mutex, no. sleep mutexes will spin when the lock holder is currently running, but this happens within the context of the mtx_lock_sleep function itself. Kris
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?46F94B6C.2090107>