On Sun, Apr 05, 2015 at 06:47:21PM +0300, Gleb Smirnoff wrote: > This is r281079. > > Since vm_page_advise() may call vm_page_dirty() in the MADV_DONTNEED case, > the assertion is valid. So, looks like vm_fault_dontneed() needs W-lock on > the first_object. > Either this, or vm_page_advise() could be changed to do nothing in the case of MADV_DONTNEED operation and a need to call vm_page_dirty(), if the object is only read-locked. _______________________________________________ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
- panic: Lock vm object not exclusively locked @ /usr/sr... David Wolfskill
- Re: panic: Lock vm object not exclusively locked ... Gleb Smirnoff
- Re: panic: Lock vm object not exclusively loc... Konstantin Belousov
- Re: panic: Lock vm object not exclusively... David Wolfskill
- Re: panic: Lock vm object not exclusi... David Wolfskill
- Re: panic: Lock vm object not exclusively loc... Alan Cox
- Re: panic: Lock vm object not exclusively... Gleb Smirnoff
- Re: panic: Lock vm object not exclusi... Alan Cox
- Re: panic: Lock vm object not ex... Gleb Smirnoff
- Re: panic: Lock vm object no... Alan Cox
- Re: panic: Lock vm objec... David Wolfskill
- Re: panic: Lock vm object not ex... Rui Paulo
- Re: panic: Lock vm object no... Alan Cox