Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Fri, 6 Nov 2020 22:26:44 +0100
From:      Mateusz Guzik <mjguzik@gmail.com>
To:        Andriy Gapon <avg@freebsd.org>
Cc:        freebsd-current@freebsd.org, freebsd-fs@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: panic: VERIFY(ZFS_TEARDOWN_READ_HELD(zfsvfs)) failed
Message-ID:  <CAGudoHHsghUQODipQ7dO3i-jNn1%2BYQza0XTqLBEd4N9nxneLDA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAGudoHHEJj0x1tecy%2Bd-HgkVgc3rRb5%2BhgRT_jW%2Bx2PEnu7o-w@mail.gmail.com>
References:  <98c87b4f-4327-8a19-cf51-f3a14e42edf4@FreeBSD.org> <CAGudoHHmBW64HsKq8h8y4_8e9WMqpFgzx2XikpcRCz9=EmRwEQ@mail.gmail.com> <bbeabc54-7b1d-e617-65be-9fc842b53824@FreeBSD.org> <CAGudoHHEJj0x1tecy%2Bd-HgkVgc3rRb5%2BhgRT_jW%2Bx2PEnu7o-w@mail.gmail.com>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
I think I have an idea how to keep this. In the meantime you can just
comment it out.

On 11/6/20, Mateusz Guzik <mjguzik@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 11/6/20, Andriy Gapon <avg@freebsd.org> wrote:
>> On 06/11/2020 22:58, Mateusz Guzik wrote:
>>> Note the underlying primitive was recently replaced.
>>>
>>> One immediate thing to check would be exact state of the lock.
>>> READ_HELD checks for reading only, fails if you have this
>>> write-locked, which is a plausible explanation if you are coming in
>>> from less likely codepath.
>>>
>>> iow what's the backtrace and can you print both rms->readers and
>>> rms->owner (+ curthread)
>>
>> Unfortunately, I do not have a vmcore, only a picture of the screen.
>>
>> ZFS code looks correct, the lock should be held in read mode, so indeed I
>> suspect that the problem is with rms.
>>
>> It looks like rms_rlock() does not change rmslock::readers, but
>> rms_rowned()
>> checks it?
>>
>> That's just from a first, super-quick look at the code.
>>
>
> Heh, now that you mention it, I remember wanting to just remove the
> arguably spurious assert. Linux is never doing it for reading. The
> only state asserts made are for writing which works fine.
>
> As for reading assertions, there is no performant way to make it work
> and I don't think it is worth it as it is.
>
> As such, I vote for just removing these 2 asserts. They really don't
> buy anything to begin with.
>
> --
> Mateusz Guzik <mjguzik gmail.com>
>


-- 
Mateusz Guzik <mjguzik gmail.com>



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAGudoHHsghUQODipQ7dO3i-jNn1%2BYQza0XTqLBEd4N9nxneLDA>