From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Jan 24 15:07:45 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE77D16A41A for ; Thu, 24 Jan 2008 15:07:44 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from asmrookie@gmail.com) Received: from fg-out-1718.google.com (fg-out-1718.google.com [72.14.220.152]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D32B13C459 for ; Thu, 24 Jan 2008 15:07:44 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from asmrookie@gmail.com) Received: by fg-out-1718.google.com with SMTP id 16so284280fgg.35 for ; Thu, 24 Jan 2008 07:07:43 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:sender:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references:x-google-sender-auth; bh=aAAO5OVVSD7Ytul9GAfwvmQfNIwmWsqj4XU4uLjfqIU=; b=hRJ+G15ayHhA/UJ3qYxG4mOi7whXJgLl3nBhtPGKRBKc8gTVBIE44bkDdNGD3oxRiKfSqF0HoUzLYgF6TwHR37bgXBoq5UAXJx+f5tQVgUXgh2Qzl3ua/CloDzuCdHUsdmbDte3tPQ0AQrRGJRJGRG2dHloHwXscmMbdIcZ7cHo= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:sender:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references:x-google-sender-auth; b=ZZqpJoXrGm+u7xhqKLK1FDXB9Zf8EOWWQnv2t7FwdTAAt5Z2lk9fZZJLMqdR8HAInzk42szdBpvxg9ms+imt3T+aqFanTQBP8KVSGHoZ4r65EGkEGFoqe1nhgB7YMp2kd99xCwzStJ6xyKHEpt1cEQE61P5g9Ibl0oUkuzmnWO0= Received: by 10.86.58.3 with SMTP id g3mr719374fga.1.1201187263337; Thu, 24 Jan 2008 07:07:43 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.86.53.7 with HTTP; Thu, 24 Jan 2008 07:07:43 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <3bbf2fe10801240707o72b927cg74dbf9b7bbcd88fc@mail.gmail.com> Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 16:07:43 +0100 From: "Attilio Rao" Sender: asmrookie@gmail.com To: "Yar Tikhiy" In-Reply-To: <20080124145811.GB78114@comp.chem.msu.su> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <790a9fff0801150552l542a4238ofc12efe5fdb45fc2@mail.gmail.com> <20080115143924.GB57756@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> <20080124122808.GA15600@freefall.freebsd.org> <3bbf2fe10801240518i6e18b2f5w84de652d4170c95b@mail.gmail.com> <20080124145811.GB78114@comp.chem.msu.su> X-Google-Sender-Auth: b78dd12f67775387 Cc: Kostik Belousov , freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: panic: System call lstat returning with 1 locks held X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 15:07:45 -0000 2008/1/24, Yar Tikhiy : > On Thu, Jan 24, 2008 at 02:18:56PM +0100, Attilio Rao wrote: > > 2008/1/24, Yar Tikhiy : > > > On Tue, Jan 15, 2008 at 04:39:24PM +0200, Kostik Belousov wrote: > > > > > > > > I think this could be related to the recent vn_lock()/VOP_LOCK() KPI changes. > > > > Please, add DEBUG_VFS_LOCKS to the kernel config, and do the > > > > show lockedvnods > > > > from the ddb prompt when the panic occurs. The witness does not track > > > > the lockmgr locks. > > > > > > I think I'm seeing the same panic on UFS. It's rather nasty: I > > > cannot rebuild CURRENT natively due to it so I have to build it > > > under 6-STABLE. My favourite way to trigger the panic reliably is > > > running `make install' in a simple port directory, e.g., portmaster, > > > but my system also panics during daily scripts run and, as already > > > said, if trying to build world. > > > > Yar, > > as it seems reproducible for you, can you please add this patch to the tree: > > http://www.freebsd.org/~attilio/debug_tdlocks.diff > > > > compile your kernel with: > > options KTR > > options KTR_COMPILE=(KTR_SPARE2) > > options KTR_MASK=(KTR_SPARE2) > > options KTR_ENTRIES=32768 > > > > and once kernel panics, at ddb prompts do: > > > show ktr > > Thank you for your instant response! > > The patched kernel is already being built, but I've got the following > question in the meanwhile: Should I have updated my kernel to get your > latest changes to kern_lock.c? Now my local copy of kern_lock.c is at > rev. 1.119, i.e., 1 revision behind today's change. As long as this patch still applies, it should not any meaningful difference. Thanks a lot for your effort of testing and reporting bugs! Attilio -- Peace can only be achieved by understanding - A. Einstein