(unknown charset) Re: Another pmap related panic

From: (unknown charset) Alan L. Cox <alc_at_imimic.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2003 09:29:48 -0500
Mark Tinguely wrote:
> 
> It could be a memory problem. Could you also please apply an assert
> to pmap_enter_quick() + INVARIANTS. This is a quick test that checks
> all the other paths that call pmap_enter_quick() are locked out so
> that two processors cannot be using the PADDR1/PMAP1 at the same time.
> 

Neither of Lukas's panics suggests that PADDR1/PMAP1 is being used.  The
faulting virtual addresses are

fault virtual address   = 0xbfca1974

and

fault virtual address   = 0xbfcadf10

which are within the PTmap, not PADDR1.  In other words,
pmap_pte_quick() concluded that the given pmap was currently active and
therefore the pte was accessible through the mapping that each address
space has to its own page table.

Regards,
Alan
Received on Tue Aug 26 2003 - 05:30:06 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:37:20 UTC