On Saturday 10 November 2007, Pieter de Goeje wrote: > On Friday 09 November 2007, Kostik Belousov wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 09, 2007 at 01:04:44PM +0100, Pieter de Goeje wrote: > > > > Is anyone who had been able to trigger this panic still having > > > > problems with recent kernels (and soft updates turned on)? I've > > > > checked with a few people who had been experiencing the panic and > > > > they can no longer trigger it. > > > > > > > > It's at least a tiny bit possible some of the VM fixes that have gone > > > > in addressed this problem. We'd like to find out if anyone can still > > > > trigger this. > > > > > > I can no longer reproduce it any more. > > > > Could anybody who was able to trigger the panic with relative ease, do > > the binary search for the dates that > > A. started the problem > > B. eliminated it > > > > There is uneasy feeling for the bug that did such appearance and still > > not tracked. > > Doing a binary search now. Might take some time though. This commit to sys/vm/vm_object.c fixed it: revision 1.386 date: 2007/10/18 23:02:18; author: alc; state: Exp; lines: +2 -1 The previous revision, updating vm_object_page_remove() for the new page cache, did not account for the case where the vm object has nothing but cached pages. Reported by: kris, tegge Reviewed by: tegge If you want I can still do a search for the commit that introduced the problem, but I think this gives a rather strong clue on what caused it :) Pieter de GoejeReceived on Sun Nov 11 2007 - 13:34:06 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:39:21 UTC