Re: BUG: MAX_LOCKDEP_CHAIN_HLOCKS too low!

[Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>]

On 1/26/23 12:38, Boqun Feng wrote:
> [Cc lock folks]
>
> On Thu, Jan 26, 2023 at 02:47:42PM +0500, Mikhail Gavrilov wrote:
>> On Wed, Jan 25, 2023 at 10:21 PM David Sterba <dsterba@suse.cz> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jan 25, 2023 at 01:27:48AM +0500, Mikhail Gavrilov wrote:
>>>> On Tue, Jul 26, 2022 at 9:47 PM David Sterba <dsterba@suse.cz> wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, Jul 26, 2022 at 05:32:54PM +0500, Mikhail Gavrilov wrote:
>>>>>> Hi guys.
>>>>>> Always with intensive writing on a btrfs volume, the message "BUG:
>>>>>> MAX_LOCKDEP_CHAIN_HLOCKS too low!" appears in the kernel logs.
>>>>> Increase the config value of LOCKDEP_CHAINS_BITS, default is 16, 18
>>>>> tends to work.
>>>> Hi,
>>>> Today I was able to get the message "BUG: MAX_LOCKDEP_CHAIN_HLOCKS too
>>>> low!" again even with LOCKDEP_CHAINS_BITS=18 and kernel 6.2-rc5.
>>>>
>>>> ❯ cat /boot/config-`uname -r` | grep LOCKDEP_CHAINS_BITS
>>>> CONFIG_LOCKDEP_CHAINS_BITS=18
>>>>
>>>> [88685.088099] BUG: MAX_LOCKDEP_CHAIN_HLOCKS too low!
>>>> [88685.088124] turning off the locking correctness validator.
>>>> [88685.088133] Please attach the output of /proc/lock_stat to the bug report
>>>> [88685.088142] CPU: 14 PID: 1749746 Comm: mv Tainted: G        W    L
>>>>    -------  ---  6.2.0-0.rc5.20230123git2475bf0250de.38.fc38.x86_64 #1
>>>> [88685.088154] Hardware name: System manufacturer System Product
>>>> Name/ROG STRIX X570-I GAMING, BIOS 4408 10/28/2022
>>>>
>>>> What's next? Increase this value to 19?
>>> Yes, though increasing the value is a workaround so you may see the
>>> warning again.
>> Is there any sense in this WARNING if we would ignore it and every
>> time increase the threshold value?
> Lockdep uses static allocated array to track lock holdings chains to
> avoid dynmaic memory allocation in its own code. So if you see the
> warning it means your test has more combination of lock holdings than
> the array can record. In other words, you reach the resource limitation,
> and in that sense it makes sense to just ignore it and increase the
> value: you want to give lockdep enough resource to work, right?
>
>> May Be set 99 right away? Or remove such a check condition?
> That requires having 2^99 * 5 * sizeof(u16) memory for lock holding
> chains array..

Note that every increment of LOCKDEP_CHAINS_BITS double the storage 
space. With 99, that will likely exceed the total amount of memory you 
have in your system.

Boqun, where does the 5 figure come from. It is just a simple u16 array 
of size MAX_LOCKDEP_CHAIN_HLOCKS. The chain_hlocks array stores the lock 
chains that show up in the lockdep splats and in the /proc/lockdep* 
files. Each chain is variable size. As we add new lock into the chain, 
we have to repeatedly deallocate and reallocate a larger chain buffer. 
That will cause fragmentation in the chain_hlocks[]. So if we have a 
very long lock chain, the allocation may fail because the largest free 
block is smaller than the requested chain length. There may be enough 
free space in chain_hlocks, but it is just too fragmented to be useful.

Maybe we should figure out a better way to handle this fragmentation. In 
the mean time, the easiest way forward is just to increase the 
LOCKDEP_CHAINS_BITS by 1.

>
> However, a few other options we can try in lockdep are:
>
> *	warn but not turn off the lockdep: the lock holding chain is
> 	only a cache for what lock holding combination lockdep has ever
> 	see, we also record the dependency in the graph. Without the
> 	lock holding chain, lockdep can still work but just slower.
>
> *	allow dynmaic memory allocation in lockdep: I think this might
> 	be OK since we have lockdep_recursion to avoid lockdep code ->
> 	mm code -> lockdep code -> mm code ... deadlock. But maybe I'm
> 	missing something. And even we allow it, the use of memory
> 	doesn't change, you will still need that amout of memory to
> 	track lock holding chains.

It is not just the issue of calling the memory allocator. There is also 
the issue of copying data from old chain_hlocks to new one while the old 
one may be updated during the copying process unless we can freeze 
everything else.

Cheers,
Longman