From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Jan 13 11:49:44 2005 Return-Path: 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 CACAF16A4CE for ; Thu, 13 Jan 2005 11:49:44 +0000 (GMT) Received: from relay.pair.com (relay00.pair.com [209.68.1.20]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id E570D43D53 for ; Thu, 13 Jan 2005 11:49:41 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from pho@holm.cc) Received: (qmail 78358 invoked from network); 13 Jan 2005 11:49:40 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO peter.osted.lan) (unknown) by unknown with SMTP; 13 Jan 2005 11:49:40 -0000 X-pair-Authenticated: 80.164.63.199 Received: from peter.osted.lan (localhost.osted.lan [127.0.0.1]) by peter.osted.lan (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id j0DBndN6079081; Thu, 13 Jan 2005 12:49:39 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from pho@peter.osted.lan) Received: (from pho@localhost) by peter.osted.lan (8.13.1/8.13.1/Submit) id j0DBndtS079080; Thu, 13 Jan 2005 12:49:39 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from pho) Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 12:49:39 +0100 From: Peter Holm To: John Baldwin Message-ID: <20050113114939.GA79046@peter.osted.lan> References: <20050109214454.GA60018@peter.osted.lan> <200501121503.29257.jhb@FreeBSD.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200501121503.29257.jhb@FreeBSD.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i cc: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org cc: current@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: panic: proc not held @ fs/procfs/procfs_regs.c:60 X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 11:49:44 -0000 On Wed, Jan 12, 2005 at 03:03:29PM -0500, John Baldwin wrote: > On Sunday 09 January 2005 04:44 pm, Peter Holm wrote: > > With GENERIC HEAD from Jan 8 08:45 UTC I got: > > > > panic(c0826351,c0826973,c082fcfc,3,c175a2e0) at panic+0xd8 > > procfs_doprocregs(c175a2e0,c1b1b5e8,c1665d80,0,ce778c90) at > > procfs_doprocregs+0x10a pfs_read(ce778c1c,20000,c1f19e04,c08294ba,845) at > > pfs_read+0x20f > > vn_read(c1b17ae4,ce778c90,c1a9c080,0,c175a2e0) at vn_read+0x1b9 > > dofileread(8,bfbfea50,4c,ffffffff,ffffffff) at dofileread+0x82 > > read(c175a2e0,ce778d14,3,1,282) at read+0x44 > > syscall(2f,2f,2f,8059f48,a7c) at syscall+0x128 > > > > Details at http://www.holm.cc/stress/log/cons105.html > > Hmm, looking at procfs_doprocregs() I'm not sure how it could lose the proc > lock. The assertion must be in one of the PROC_UNLOCK(). Can you do a > listing of the procfs_doprocregs() frame to see where it died? > No, sorry. I seem to have fumbled the backup of the tree before I did an update :-( But isn't the panic in this code: procfs_regs.c, Revision 1.29.2.1 1.24 jhb 59: PROC_LOCK(p); 1.29.2.1! das 60: KASSERT(p->p_lock > 0, ("proc not held")); > -- > John Baldwin <>< http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/ > "Power Users Use the Power to Serve" = http://www.FreeBSD.org -- Peter Holm