Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2013 03:01:07 -0400 From: J David <j.david.lists@gmail.com> To: freebsd-stable <freebsd-stable@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: NFS deadlock on 9.2-Beta1 Message-ID: <CABXB=RQZNWg7wmajNWrBLQAiUsAYXqMFAF1GVpFTMf2QvqLqWw@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <461961460.12238255.1377133690607.JavaMail.root@uoguelph.ca> References: <20130821131032.GX4972@kib.kiev.ua> <461961460.12238255.1377133690607.JavaMail.root@uoguelph.ca>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Now that a kernel with INVARIANTS/WITNESS is finally available on a machine with serial console I am having terrible trouble provoking this to happen. (Machine grinds to a halt if I put the usual test load on it due to all the debug code in the kernel.) Did get this interesting LOR, though it did not cause a deadlock: lock order reversal: 1st 0xfffffe000adb9f30 so_snd_sx (so_snd_sx) @ /usr/src/sys/kern/uipc_sockbuf.c:145 2nd 0xfffffe000aa5b098 newnfs (newnfs) @ /usr/src/sys/kern/uipc_syscalls.c:2062 KDB: stack backtrace: db_trace_self_wrapper() at db_trace_self_wrapper+0x2b/frame 0xffffff834c3995c0 kdb_backtrace() at kdb_backtrace+0x39/frame 0xffffff834c399670 witness_checkorder() at witness_checkorder+0xc0a/frame 0xffffff834c3996f0 __lockmgr_args() at __lockmgr_args+0x390/frame 0xffffff834c399810 nfs_lock1() at nfs_lock1+0x87/frame 0xffffff834c399840 VOP_LOCK1_APV() at VOP_LOCK1_APV+0xbe/frame 0xffffff834c399870 _vn_lock() at _vn_lock+0x63/frame 0xffffff834c3998d0 kern_sendfile() at kern_sendfile+0x812/frame 0xffffff834c399ac0 do_sendfile() at do_sendfile+0x92/frame 0xffffff834c399b20 amd64_syscall() at amd64_syscall+0x259/frame 0xffffff834c399c30 Xfast_syscall() at Xfast_syscall+0xfb/frame 0xffffff834c399c30 --- syscall (393, FreeBSD ELF64, sys_sendfile), rip = 0x801b24f4c, rsp = 0x7fffffffcf58, rbp = 0x7fffffffd290 --- Once the real deal pops up, collecting the full requested info should be no problem, but it could take awhile to happen with only one machine that can't run the full test battery. So if a "real" fix is dependent on this, reverting r250907 for 9.2-RELEASE is probably the way to go. With that configuration, releng/9.2 continues to be pretty solid for us. Thanks! (Since this doesn't contain the requested info, I heavily trimmed the Cc: list. It is not my intention to waste the time of everybody involved.)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CABXB=RQZNWg7wmajNWrBLQAiUsAYXqMFAF1GVpFTMf2QvqLqWw>