From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG  Wed Jul  2 04:46:46 2003
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 7107137B401; Wed,  2 Jul 2003 04:46:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hub.org (hub.org [64.117.225.220])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id E8B4043FF2; Wed,  2 Jul 2003 04:46:45 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from scrappy@hub.org)
Received: from hub.org (unknown [64.117.225.220])
	by hub.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 9CD866BDAAD; Wed,  2 Jul 2003 08:46:40 -0300 (ADT)
Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2003 08:46:40 -0300 (ADT)
From: "Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@hub.org>
To: David Schultz <das@FreeBSD.org>
In-Reply-To: <20030702073306.GA3324@HAL9000.homeunix.com>
Message-ID: <20030702084558.J67063@hub.org>
References: <20030701155450.J67063@hub.org>
	<20030702073306.GA3324@HAL9000.homeunix.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
cc: freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.org
cc: Ted Mittelstaedt <tedm@toybox.placo.com>
Subject: Re: Okay, looks like I might have a *good* one here ... inode hang
X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code
	<freebsd-stable.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable>,
	<mailto:freebsd-stable-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-stable>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-stable@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-stable-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable>,
	<mailto:freebsd-stable-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2003 11:46:46 -0000

On Wed, 2 Jul 2003, David Schultz wrote:

> On Tue, Jul 01, 2003, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> [...]
> > and I have a vmcore to work on here !! :)
>
> Yes, this does look promising.  Can you look at
> *(struct lock *)0x8a4ef300 (the lock the second
> process is trying to acquire) also?

(kgdb) print *(struct lock *)0x8a4ef300
$2 = {lk_interlock = {lock_data = 0}, lk_flags = 2098240, lk_sharecount = 0, lk_waitcount = 2, lk_exclusivecount = 1, lk_prio = 8, lk_wmesg = 0x80263d4a "inode", lk_timo = 6,
  lk_lockholder = 75285}


> It probably points back to the first process, but we might as well be
> sure.  It might also be interesting to see the ndp arguments to the
> namei calls, but the problem can probably be tracked down without them.

How do I do this one?