From owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Mar 15 21:25:38 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 11B32106566B for ; Thu, 15 Mar 2012 21:25:38 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jhb@freebsd.org) Received: from cyrus.watson.org (cyrus.watson.org [65.122.17.42]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE12F8FC15 for ; Thu, 15 Mar 2012 21:25:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: from bigwig.baldwin.cx (bigwig.baldwin.cx [96.47.65.170]) by cyrus.watson.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9448846B2A; Thu, 15 Mar 2012 17:25:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: from jhbbsd.localnet (unknown [209.249.190.124]) by bigwig.baldwin.cx (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id F188EB942; Thu, 15 Mar 2012 17:25:36 -0400 (EDT) From: John Baldwin To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2012 13:33:22 -0400 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.5 (FreeBSD/8.2-CBSD-20110714-p10; KDE/4.5.5; amd64; ; ) References: <4F5F902A.2030108@luckie.org.nz> In-Reply-To: <4F5F902A.2030108@luckie.org.nz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201203151333.22242.jhb@freebsd.org> X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.7 (bigwig.baldwin.cx); Thu, 15 Mar 2012 17:25:37 -0400 (EDT) Cc: Matthew Luckie Subject: Re: freebsd 9.0R panic in vfs_cache.c:364 cache_zap() X-BeenThere: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Filesystems List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2012 21:25:38 -0000 On Tuesday, March 13, 2012 2:21:30 pm Matthew Luckie wrote: > Hi > > This is likely to be a useless report because I don't have a crash dump. > > I upgraded to freebsd 9.0R on Friday night and last night (Monday) it > panicked during a nightly rsync. First time I've had a panic during a > nightly rsync on this machine, which has been running for about two > years. I searched lists to see if there was a known problem but didn't > come across anything, and I'm not sure what to search for. There seem > to have been a few commits on RELENG_9 to vfs_cache.c since release, is > it worthwhile upgrading to a 9-stable? Hmm, I have seen a similar panic (albeit in this case the vdropl() from cache_zap() panic'd due to the refcount underflowing) on two different boxes running 8, so I don't think this is specific to 9. -- John Baldwin