On Sat, 2005-01-15 at 12:57, Frederick Bruckman wrote:
> In article <1105807019.64610.7754.camel@palm.tree.com>,
> 	Stephan Uphoff <ups@tree.com> writes:
> > On Sat, 2005-01-15 at 10:05, Manuel Bouyer wrote:
> >> 
> >> If you think that a current kernel has additionnal fixes that may be relevant,
> > 
> > Mhhh .. is see a change in the i386 spl logic:
> > 
> >> Updaing ci_ilevel and testing ci_ipending must be done with all
> >>  interrupts
> >> off, or priority inversion can occur, which can lead to IPI deadlocks.
> >> Leaves interrupts off for a bit longer, sadly, but with no noticeable
> >> effects on the systems I tested on.
> >>
> >> From YAMAMOTO Takashi.
> > 
> > That did not make it to the 2-0-RELEASE.
> 
> You must mean this...
> 
>   http://mail-index.netbsd.org/source-changes/2004/06/28/0021.html

Yes

> 
> I tried that one early on, and it didn't make a difference for me.

have you tried this AND the splclock()/splx in x86_ipi patch?
Both could cause the panic ...

> Another data point -- the panic doesn't seem to occur until "top"
> and "vmstat -m" indicate that most of the permitted kernel memory
> is being utilized. (That's 256MB with 1GB of memory.)

I have to think about this.

Is anyone encountering the problem with a recent current?

Stephan