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_at_FreeBSD.org> <>< http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/ "Power Users Use the Power to Serve" = http://www.FreeBSD.orgReceived on Wed Jan 12 2005 - 19:11:28 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:38:26 UTC