Date: Sat, 5 Oct 2002 10:23:59 -0700 (PDT) From: "Steven G. Kargl" <kargl@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> To: "Brian F. Feldman" <green@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org, kirk@freebsd.org Subject: Re: panic from _mutex_assert in kern_lock.c Message-ID: <200210051723.g95HNxKv014164@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> In-Reply-To: <200210051712.g95HCOLw012226@green.bikeshed.org> "from Brian F. Feldman at Oct 5, 2002 01:12:24 pm"
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Brian F. Feldman said:
> "Steven G. Kargl" <kargl@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> wrote:
> > The source tree was retrieved by cvsup
> > at 21:47 (PST) on Oct 4.
> >
> > This is a non-GEOM and non-acpi kernel.
> >
> > I have the core and kernel.debug, so any
> > further postmortem is possible.
>
> I think the problem is that in src/sys/ufs/ffs/
> ffs_snapshot.c:ffs_snapshot(),
> as the mnt vnode list is traversed none of the vnodes ("xvp") would actually GET
> VI_LOCK()ed in the first place, and so the LK_INTERLOCK is bogus in the
> vn_lock() call. Kirk would know for sure what to do about this...
>
I came to the same conclusion after I sent the original email.
What I don't understand is how I ended up in ffs_snapshot(),
because I don't have a snapshot of /var. I tried snapshots
when Kirk first introduced the feature, but I removed all
of the snapshots a long time ago. Is there a flag in the
superblock that I need to clear?
One other point, the machine was doing a background fsck
on /var. Does a background fsck go through ffs_snapshot()?
--
Steve
http://troutmask.apl.washington.edu/~kargl/
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200210051723.g95HNxKv014164>