From owner-freebsd-current Sat Oct 5 10:24: 1 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 824EC37B401; Sat, 5 Oct 2002 10:24:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from troutmask.apl.washington.edu (troutmask.apl.washington.edu [128.208.78.105]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 235B643E4A; Sat, 5 Oct 2002 10:24:00 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from kargl@troutmask.apl.washington.edu) Received: from troutmask.apl.washington.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by troutmask.apl.washington.edu (8.12.6/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g95HNx4G014165; Sat, 5 Oct 2002 10:23:59 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from kargl@troutmask.apl.washington.edu) Received: (from kargl@localhost) by troutmask.apl.washington.edu (8.12.6/8.12.6/Submit) id g95HNxKv014164; Sat, 5 Oct 2002 10:23:59 -0700 (PDT) From: "Steven G. Kargl" Message-Id: <200210051723.g95HNxKv014164@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> Subject: Re: panic from _mutex_assert in kern_lock.c In-Reply-To: <200210051712.g95HCOLw012226@green.bikeshed.org> "from Brian F. Feldman at Oct 5, 2002 01:12:24 pm" To: "Brian F. Feldman" Date: Sat, 5 Oct 2002 10:23:59 -0700 (PDT) Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org, kirk@freebsd.org X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL88 (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Brian F. Feldman said: > "Steven G. Kargl" 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