From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Dec 12 10:41:02 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D8F41065676 for ; Fri, 12 Dec 2008 10:41:02 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from rwatson@FreeBSD.org) Received: from cyrus.watson.org (cyrus.watson.org [65.122.17.42]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 48C2D8FC16 for ; Fri, 12 Dec 2008 10:41:02 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from rwatson@FreeBSD.org) Received: from fledge.watson.org (fledge.watson.org [65.122.17.41]) by cyrus.watson.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E0A6246B64; Fri, 12 Dec 2008 05:41:01 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2008 10:41:01 +0000 (GMT) From: Robert Watson X-X-Sender: robert@fledge.watson.org To: Bartosz Stec In-Reply-To: <49423E5A.10900@kkip.pl> Message-ID: References: <4940A685.7040608@psg.com> <494216C2.7080606@kkip.pl> <20081212095238.GY2038@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> <49423E5A.10900@kkip.pl> User-Agent: Alpine 1.10 (BSF 962 2008-03-14) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Cc: Kostik Belousov , Randy Bush , FreeBSD Current Subject: Re: panic: sleeping thread & bufwrite: buffer is not busy??? 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: Fri, 12 Dec 2008 10:41:02 -0000 On Fri, 12 Dec 2008, Bartosz Stec wrote: > OK. I'll try to build debug kernel today and I will provide backtrace. I > forgot to mention in my last post that I saw very similiar (if not > identical) lines to: > > Sleeping thread (tid 100054, pid 646) owns a non-sleepable lock > panic: sleeping thread > panic: bufwrite: buffer is not busy??? > > while checking dmesg buffer after one of the panics earlier. That's why I > assumed it's probably the same issue. Sorry for confusion, they're my first > steps with CURRENT and very first experience with kernel panic :). Yeah, secondary panics can significantly complicate the debugging process, unfortunately. Another similar class of confusing cases exist when panics occur and are then preempted during the panic by another thread that promptly trips over state left behind by the first thread, and panics. :-) Robert N M Watson Computer Laboratory University of Cambridge