Re: panic: proc not held @ fs/procfs/procfs_regs.c:60

From: John Baldwin (jhb_at_FreeBSD.org)
Date: 01/12/05

  • Next message: John Baldwin: "Re: panic: proc not held @ fs/procfs/procfs_regs.c:60" 
    To: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org
Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 15:03:29 -0500

    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? 

    -- 
John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org>  <><  http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/
"Power Users Use the Power to Serve"  =  http://www.FreeBSD.org
_______________________________________________
freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"
  • Next message: John Baldwin: "Re: panic: proc not held @ fs/procfs/procfs_regs.c:60"

    Relevant Pages