Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2008 10:41:01 +0000 (GMT) From: Robert Watson <rwatson@FreeBSD.org> To: Bartosz Stec <admin@kkip.pl> Cc: Kostik Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com>, Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>, FreeBSD Current <current@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: panic: sleeping thread & bufwrite: buffer is not busy??? Message-ID: <alpine.BSF.1.10.0812121039180.41885@fledge.watson.org> In-Reply-To: <49423E5A.10900@kkip.pl> References: <4940A685.7040608@psg.com> <494216C2.7080606@kkip.pl> <20081212095238.GY2038@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> <49423E5A.10900@kkip.pl>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?alpine.BSF.1.10.0812121039180.41885>