Dave Voutila wrote:
> Is mispeaking? This is what I experienced:
>
> panic: acquiring blockable sleep lock with spinlock or critical section
> held (kernel_lock) _lock
>
> Full backtraces of two occurrences: https://imgur.com/a/vKIe3k7
It looks like this began with sys_generic.c 1.130
Mark Kettenis writes:
>> From: Dave Voutila
>> Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2021 07:18:23 -0500
>>
>> Mark Kettenis writes:
>>
>> >> From: Dave Voutila
>> >> Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2021 22:51:59 -0500
>> >>
>> >> The last vmm diff I'll be sending tonight...promise! This swaps out
>> >> usage of printf(9)
> From: Dave Voutila
> Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2021 07:18:23 -0500
>
> Mark Kettenis writes:
>
> >> From: Dave Voutila
> >> Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2021 22:51:59 -0500
> >>
> >> The last vmm diff I'll be sending tonight...promise! This swaps out
> >> usage of printf(9) outside the autoconf(4) functions.
Mark Kettenis writes:
>> From: Dave Voutila
>> Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2021 22:51:59 -0500
>>
>> The last vmm diff I'll be sending tonight...promise! This swaps out
>> usage of printf(9) outside the autoconf(4) functions.
>>
>> The reason for this change is printf(9) could acquire a sleepable
>>
> From: Dave Voutila
> Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2021 22:51:59 -0500
>
> The last vmm diff I'll be sending tonight...promise! This swaps out
> usage of printf(9) outside the autoconf(4) functions.
>
> The reason for this change is printf(9) could acquire a sleepable
> lock.
Huh?
/*
* printf: print a
The last vmm diff I'll be sending tonight...promise! This swaps out
usage of printf(9) outside the autoconf(4) functions.
The reason for this change is printf(9) could acquire a sleepable
lock. For VMX-based hosts, this can corrupt the active VMCS as the
scheduler may decide to migrate the
