on 19/03/2013 19:35 Jeremy Chadwick said the following: > On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 06:18:06PM +0100, Michael Landin Hostbaek wrote: [snip] >> Unread portion of the kernel message buffer: >> Sleeping thread (tid 100256, pid 85641) owns a non-sleepable lock >> KDB: stack backtrace of thread 100256: >> #0 0xffffffff808f2d46 at mi_switch+0x186 >> #1 0xffffffff8092bb52 at sleepq_wait+0x42 >> #2 0xffffffff808f34d6 at _sleep+0x376 >> #3 0xffffffff80b4f3ae at vm_object_page_remove+0x2ce >> #4 0xffffffff80b5ac7d at vnode_pager_setsize+0x17d >> #5 0xffffffff8082102c at nfscl_loadattrcache+0x2cc >> #6 0xffffffff80818d37 at nfs_getattr+0x287 >> #7 0xffffffff8098f1c0 at vn_stat+0xb0 >> #8 0xffffffff809869d9 at kern_statat_vnhook+0xf9 >> #9 0xffffffff80986b55 at kern_statat+0x15 >> #10 0xffffffff80986c1a at sys_lstat+0x2a >> #11 0xffffffff80bd7ae6 at amd64_syscall+0x546 >> #12 0xffffffff80bc3447 at Xfast_syscall+0xf7 >> panic: sleeping thread >> cpuid = 0 >> KDB: stack backtrace: >> #0 0xffffffff809208a6 at kdb_backtrace+0x66 >> #1 0xffffffff808ea8be at panic+0x1ce >> #2 0xffffffff8092ed22 at propagate_priority+0x1d2 >> #3 0xffffffff8092fa4e at turnstile_wait+0x1be >> #4 0xffffffff808d8d48 at _mtx_lock_sleep+0xd8 >> #5 0xffffffff80820fa4 at nfscl_loadattrcache+0x244 >> #6 0xffffffff8081758c at ncl_readrpc+0xac >> #7 0xffffffff80824c45 at ncl_getpages+0x485 >> #8 0xffffffff80b5aa0c at vnode_pager_getpages+0x9c >> #9 0xffffffff80b3fc93 at vm_fault_hold+0x673 >> #10 0xffffffff80b41cc3 at vm_fault+0x73 >> #11 0xffffffff80bd84b4 at trap_pfault+0x124 >> #12 0xffffffff80bd8c6c at trap+0x49c >> #13 0xffffffff80bc315f at calltrap+0x8 [snip]
I think that the regular mutex which is acquired via NFSLOCKNODE() in nfscl_loadattrcache() can not be held across vnode_pager_setsize. I am not sure though when vap->va_size != np->n_size case is triggered. > You're going to need to provide the following details: > > 1. Contents of /etc/rc.conf > 2. Contents of /etc/sysctl.conf (if modified) > 3. Contents of /etc/fstab > 4. ifconfig -a > 5. OS used by the NFS server, and all configuration details pertaining > to that system > > You may also be asked to upgrade to 9.1-STABLE, as there may be fixes > for whatever this is in base/stable/9 that are not in -RELEASE, but this > is speculative on my part. > I do not see a need for any of these. -- Andriy Gapon _______________________________________________ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
