From owner-freebsd-current Sun Jan 5 12: 9:21 2003 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 A0CB737B401; Sun, 5 Jan 2003 12:09:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from mailman.zeta.org.au (mailman.zeta.org.au [203.26.10.16]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 28C0E43EA9; Sun, 5 Jan 2003 12:09:18 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from bde@zeta.org.au) Received: from katana.zip.com.au (katana.zip.com.au [61.8.7.246]) by mailman.zeta.org.au (8.9.3/8.8.7) with ESMTP id HAA26057; Mon, 6 Jan 2003 07:09:14 +1100 Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2003 07:09:35 +1100 (EST) From: Bruce Evans X-X-Sender: bde@gamplex.bde.org To: phk@freebsd.org Cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: specfs lock plumbing broken In-Reply-To: <9630.1041792715@critter.freebsd.dk> Message-ID: <20030106065245.O345-100000@gamplex.bde.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 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 On Sun, 5 Jan 2003 phk@freebsd.org wrote: > In message <20030106050703.N401-100000@gamplex.bde.org>, Bruce Evans writes: > >On Sun, 5 Jan 2003 phk@freebsd.org wrote: > >> This is not tested with DEVFS I take it ? > > > >It doesn't affect devfs because devfs doesn't go through ufs. It goes > >straight to the default vnodeop table so it gets std* since it doesn't > >override them. > > Uhm, no. DEVFS only goes to the default vector for directories, for > devices it goes to spec_vnoperate. Hmm, that means that the spec_vnoperate() overrides actually worked, so devfs has never had locking and fixing specfs might break devfs :-). But devfs didn't have the bug either. This is presumably ufs stays out of its way in another way: it doesn't use ffs_vget(), so the vnode is not bogusly locked initially. > >I'm getting some other panics. One while writing this was > >"bwrite: buffer is not busy???". > > Yes, I'm hunting that one atm, but havn't found a way to reproduce. > > Did you get any complaints about the wrong strategy for the wrong > type of node before this panic ? I didn't notice one for that, but there is a panic for running wine which seems to be easy to reproduce and the message occurred just before that for at least the second of 2 panics in 2 attempts to run wine here. It was something simple involving vop_stdgetpages ...-> ffsext_strategy ... ffs presumably avoids this path by having a specialized getpages. > Do you have DEBUG_VFS_LOCKS in your kernel ? No. Also no INVARIANTS and the like. A profiling kernel (with profiling not running) seemed to panic faster. Bruce To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message