Sat, Nov 06, 2004 at 07:14:20AM +1100, matthew green:
   > 
   >    On Fri, Nov 05, 2004 at 08:58:35PM +1100, matthew green wrote:
   >    
   >    > the bug fix may have helped - but it hasn't fixed everything :-(
   >    
   >    I'm not surprized.  Did you attempt to analyze the hang?
   > 
   > 
   > it's not hung.  it's still able to act as an NFS server... so i haven't
   > bothered rebooting.  and because it's busy, i haven't gone poking again
   > yet... last i knew hardclock() called softintr_schedule(softclock_si)
   > but the softclock intr is never seen.. hardclock() does this at 100hz as
   > one would expect but once it's losing, softclock() itself is never
   > called again...
   
   if the processor were stuck in a trap handler, say data miss (fill, spill,
   ...), that'd be at a higher priority than a interrupt like hard/soft clock,
   so it'd never be serviced.  right?


yeah. but then all/most other processing would stop as well?
i'm still quite fine with most of my interactive shells and
NFS is working fine still....
   

.mrg.