Subject: re: panic: cpu1: lockmgr: no context
To: Simon J. Gerraty <sjg@crufty.net>
From: matthew green <mrg@eterna.com.au>
List: tech-smp
Date: 01/06/2002 01:31:37
whoops, didn't meant to send that just yet.
panic: cpu1: lockmgr: no context: lkp=0xf029810c interlkp=0x0 flags=0x1
Stopped at cpu_Debugger+0x4: jmpl [%o7 + 0x8], %g0
db{1}> trace
_lockmgr(0xf029810c, 0x1, 0x0, 0xfffffffe, 0x92, 0xf024f170) at _lockmgr+0xf0
uvm_fault(0xf0298108, 0xf61c9000, 0x0, 0x2, 0x3de, 0x0) at uvm_fault+0x80
mem_access_fault4m(0x9, 0x3a6, 0xf61c9000, 0xf61c8f00, 0x0, 0x12) at mem_access_
fault4m+0x2d8
memfault_sun4m(0xf61c8fb0, 0x80000000, 0xffffffff, 0xf01fa280, 0xedfe200, 0x6006
06) at memfault_sun4m+0xe4
sparc_interrupt44c(0xf0653f40, 0x0, 0x0, 0x0, 0x0, 0x0) at sparc_interrupt44c+0x
164
cpu_hatch(0x0, 0x0, 0x0, 0x0, 0x0, 0x0) at cpu_hatch+0x88
db{1}>
please show what "mach cpu" "mach cpu 0\ntrace" give...
so, why did cpu1 get a memfault in cpu_hatch... hmm. that
seems to be at:
call _C_LABEL(cpu_setup)
in cpu_hatch...
.mrg.