On 11/11/18 00:07, Konstantin Belousov wrote: > On Sat, Nov 10, 2018 at 05:27:09PM +0100, Guido Falsi wrote: >> On 10/11/18 13:08, Guido Falsi wrote: >>> I'll to bisect things, but it will be a slow process. >> >> I narrowed it down to r339895. > I somehow doubt that this is the case. > I did not mean to accuse you. Instead thanks for this reply and the suggestions. Really appreciated. I simply found out that removing that commit from my sources gives me a stable system and reported such finding. I understand that the actual cause could be an interaction with other code and am ready to review my findings. > If you take post-r339895 kernel and start e.g. 11.2-RELEASE userspace > (untar the installation into jail to avoid reinstallation), does it > still demonstrate the behaviour ? > > Also try to run pre-r339895 with the 12.0 userspace from e.g. 12.0-BETA4 > builds. I'll perform such tests. Please allow me some time to report back what I get. > >> >> My impression is that the other conditions not moved inside the ifunc >> also play a role so such optimization is not possible on all systems. >> >>> >>> I have put dmesg and pciconf output here in case it could be useful: >>> >>> https://people.freebsd.org/~madpilot/boot_fail/ > This is haswell, right ? It is exactly the same micro-arch as the machine > where I tested this series of changes. According to Intel website and Wikipedia this is an Ivy Bridge: https://ark.intel.com/products/65509 I don't know if this makes any difference at all, though. -- Guido Falsi <mad_at_madpilot.net>Received on Sun Nov 11 2018 - 09:10:18 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:41:19 UTC