On 17 July 2013 04:26, Andriy Gapon wrote:
> on 16/07/2013 22:40 Adrian Chadd said the following:
>> :( So it's a deadlock. Ok, so what's next?
>
> A creative process...
Wonderful. :)
> One possibility is to add getnewvnode_reserve() calls before the ZFS
> transaction
> beginnings in the place
on 16/07/2013 22:40 Adrian Chadd said the following:
> :( So it's a deadlock. Ok, so what's next?
A creative process...
One possibility is to add getnewvnode_reserve() calls before the ZFS transaction
beginnings in the places where a new vnode/znode may have to be allocated within
a transaction.
On 16 July 2013 12:32, Andriy Gapon wrote:
> vmcore.0 was useless for some reason - an interesting address was not
> accessible.
Eek.
> vmcore.1 seems to be very similar and is actually useful.
Oh good.
> This problem looks like an interesting deadlock involving ZFS and VFS and
> vnode
> sh
on 10/07/2013 19:50 Adrian Chadd said the following:
> On 9 July 2013 23:27, Andriy Gapon wrote:
>> on 09/07/2013 16:03 Adrian Chadd said the following:
>>> Does anyone have any ideas as to what's going on?
>>
>> Please provide output of 'thread apply all bt' from kgdb, then perhaps
>> someone
>>
On 9 July 2013 23:27, Andriy Gapon wrote:
> on 09/07/2013 16:03 Adrian Chadd said the following:
>> Does anyone have any ideas as to what's going on?
>
> Please provide output of 'thread apply all bt' from kgdb, then perhaps someone
> might be able to tell.
Done - http://people.freebsd.org/~adria
on 09/07/2013 16:03 Adrian Chadd said the following:
> Does anyone have any ideas as to what's going on?
Please provide output of 'thread apply all bt' from kgdb, then perhaps someone
might be able to tell.
--
Andriy Gapon
___
freebsd-current@freebsd.o
