Re: ATF t_mlock() babylon5 kernel panics

[Robert Elz <kre%munnari.OZ.AU@localhost>]

    Date:        Wed, 13 Mar 2019 11:44:51 -0700
    From:        Jason Thorpe <thorpej%me.com@localhost>
    Message-ID:  <9A2A4A34-35B0-490E-9A92-AAB44174FD66%me.com@localhost>

  | Ok, well, I see some problematic code in sys_mlock() and sys_munlock(),
  | but I don't think it's affecting this case (and it may in fact have
  | the effect of making the test pass if a non-page-aligned buffer is passed):

Yes, I was expecting that might happen - and in some ways that's a convenient
thing, in (just one) recent run, the b5 tests actually passed (without
any apparent changes anywhere that could have affected anything.)   Tests
that pass don't save any logs to be looked at (they're not supposed to
be interesting!) so there's no way we will ever know for sure, but I was
kind of hoping that this might have been the explanation.   Usually we're
getting page aligned memory, but perhaps not, that one time.

  | I would suggest instrumenting-with-printf the "new_pageable"
  | case of uvm_map_pageable()

I will look at that later today (unless someone else solves the problem
first) - more unrelated tasks for the next few hours...

kre