Decidedly odd. db_read_bytes is inside ddb -- your uvm_fault shown here occurred after ddb had already been called; which means this is the second panic/fault, and not the primary problem.
Something is definitely out-of-whack. What, though, I cannot tell with any certainly.
If this secondary uvm_fault trap is in any way part of the problem, note that these are problems in virtual memory (paging/swapping/RAM). It isn't necessarily hardware; even so I recommend lots of memtest86, see if it an overnight test shows anything.
|