From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG  Mon Dec  8 00:11:18 2003
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG>
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 02A8C16A4CE
	for <freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org>;
	Mon,  8 Dec 2003 00:11:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from gw.catspoiler.org (217-ip-163.nccn.net [209.79.217.163])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 864A043FCB
	for <freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org>;
	Mon,  8 Dec 2003 00:10:03 -0800 (PST)
	(envelope-from truckman@FreeBSD.org)
Received: from FreeBSD.org (mousie.catspoiler.org [192.168.101.2])
	by gw.catspoiler.org (8.12.9p2/8.12.9) with ESMTP id hB888weF046387;
	Mon, 8 Dec 2003 00:09:21 -0800 (PST)
	(envelope-from truckman@FreeBSD.org)
Message-Id: <200312080809.hB888weF046387@gw.catspoiler.org>
Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2003 00:08:58 -0800 (PST)
From: Don Lewis <truckman@FreeBSD.org>
To: kuriyama@imgsrc.co.jp
In-Reply-To: <7msmjv6f5z.wl@black.imgsrc.co.jp>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/plain; charset=us-ascii
cc: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org
Subject: Re: acquiring duplicate lock of same type: "vnode interlock"
X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current
	<freebsd-current.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-current@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 08 Dec 2003 08:11:18 -0000

On  8 Dec, Jun Kuriyama wrote:
> 
> I got a witness message in my console with today's -current (not RELENG_5_2).
> 
> 
> ----- console
> acquiring duplicate lock of same type: "vnode interlock"
>  1st vnode interlock @ ufs/ffs/ffs_snapshot.c:1794
>  2nd vnode interlock @ ufs/ffs/ffs_snapshot.c:1796
> Stack backtrace:
> backtrace(c0734d9b,c073959e,c0748dca,704,c82a0008) at backtrace+0x17
> witness_lock(c864c6f0,8,c0748dca,704,c860bdac) at witness_lock+0x672
> _mtx_lock_flags(c864c6f0,0,c0748dc1,704,c072bed0) at _mtx_lock_flags+0xba
> ffs_snapshot_mount(c85b2800,c85b2800,c8599000,c42f1600,c42f1600) at ffs_snapshot_mount+0x2b0
> ffs_mountfs(c864ccb8,c85b2800,c82a8000,c0557bd0,c07317d6) at ffs_mountfs+0xa6e

I think this is probably harmless, but it I think it should be fixed.
It's a bit tricky since the locking in ffs_snapshot_mount() has to be
compatible with the locking in ffs_snapshot_unmount().