On Thursday 08 April 2004 02:59 pm, Marcel Moolenaar wrote: > On Thu, Apr 08, 2004 at 11:51:24AM -0400, Robert Watson wrote: > > > > Presumably in large part because I'm in code that doesn't require > > > > Giant, so there are no lock conflicts. > > > > > > I don't think that's the case. It think we're just not stopping the > > > CPUs or keep them stopped. > > > > I agree with that interpretation -- I was suggesting that the reason this > > problem might not be noticed is that a lot of our code paths require > > Giant, and it's only when you panic in code without Giant that > > Ah, ok. The thing that strikes me as odd, if not wrong, is that we > use PCPU(CPUID) to update the stopped_cpus mask, while we should be > using PCPU(CPUMASK) for that. See attached patch (untested). > > Am I off-base here? Yes. btsl takes a bit number, not a bitmask. -- John Baldwin <jhb_at_FreeBSD.org> <>< http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/ "Power Users Use the Power to Serve" = http://www.FreeBSD.orgReceived on Wed Apr 14 2004 - 06:42:13 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:37:51 UTC