6 messages in org.freebsd.freebsd-smpRe: NETGRAPH broken with witness| From | Sent On | Attachments |
|---|---|---|
| Kris Kennaway | Feb 22, 2001 11:11 pm | |
| Julian Elischer | Feb 23, 2001 1:57 am | |
| Kris Kennaway | Feb 23, 2001 2:08 am | |
| Julian Elischer | Feb 23, 2001 2:46 am | |
| Chuck Paterson | Feb 23, 2001 6:53 am | |
| John Baldwin | Feb 23, 2001 10:59 am |
| Subject: | Re: NETGRAPH broken with witness | |
|---|---|---|
| From: | John Baldwin (jh...@FreeBSD.ORG) | |
| Date: | Feb 23, 2001 10:59:52 am | |
| List: | org.freebsd.freebsd-smp | |
On 23-Feb-01 Julian Elischer wrote:
Kris Kennaway wrote:
On Fri, Feb 23, 2001 at 01:57:36AM -0800, Julian Elischer wrote:
Kris Kennaway wrote:
Apparently this was never tested: early in the boot phase I get the following panic:
panic: spin lock netgraph worklist mutex not in order list
and indeed the witness code appears to have no knowledge of the netgraph spinlocks.
so how is it supposed to know?
From what I can gather, you add the locking hierarchy to be enforced to spin_order_list in kern.mutex.c
hmm tricky.. I thought initiating the damned thing would insert it.
For sleep mutexes it is automatic, yes. Spin mutexes are intended to only be used in very low level code and thus only in places where the order can be easily laid out.
--
John Baldwin <jh...@FreeBSD.org> -- http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/ PGP Key: http://www.Baldwin.cx/~john/pgpkey.asc "Power Users Use the Power to Serve!" - http://www.FreeBSD.org/
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majo...@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-smp" in the body of the message