From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.3 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BCA14C4338F for ; Mon, 16 Aug 2021 10:23:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A137561BA8 for ; Mon, 16 Aug 2021 10:23:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S232180AbhHPKYK (ORCPT ); Mon, 16 Aug 2021 06:24:10 -0400 Received: from smtp-out1.suse.de ([195.135.220.28]:52578 "EHLO smtp-out1.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S235568AbhHPKXv (ORCPT ); Mon, 16 Aug 2021 06:23:51 -0400 Received: from relay2.suse.de (relay2.suse.de [149.44.160.134]) by smtp-out1.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 37A7421E66; Mon, 16 Aug 2021 10:23:18 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.cz; s=susede2_rsa; t=1629109398; h=from:from:reply-to:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to: cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=l7Y9OJT185f9lrvdNLlTDEti/sJoJ3cODm8Y4IIvGV0=; b=AvX+Z4rtRRSnrMicn6MVnPC1S7GcTpJs7phrctEDNZf28u9/E7N7fyKPAeZIbRd2Nd7me/ VHAjfEz7uNg3/Xw4lLutZPLtf33+zUbrOPuZBr3sxTLwjcEfqFcK8jLAiWqAfdOPJqze74 w+u2R9HT4U7FmJZ3Xv0FdDMmYvqu1yM= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.cz; s=susede2_ed25519; t=1629109398; h=from:from:reply-to:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to: cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=l7Y9OJT185f9lrvdNLlTDEti/sJoJ3cODm8Y4IIvGV0=; b=2w3Ff2U2eX2scAvXiPuCffUujw/UeW9wIjccQS7OQb5J7Ynneqkfpw2eW8XrUDR4aSBK5x G2Tj37ZSQgIwL1Dg== Received: from ds.suse.cz (ds.suse.cz [10.100.12.205]) by relay2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2EF89A3B89; Mon, 16 Aug 2021 10:23:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: by ds.suse.cz (Postfix, from userid 10065) id 8C339DA72C; Mon, 16 Aug 2021 12:20:22 +0200 (CEST) Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2021 12:20:22 +0200 From: David Sterba To: Chris Murphy Cc: Btrfs BTRFS Subject: Re: 5.14-0-rc5, splat in block_group_cache_tree_search while __btrfs_unlink_inode Message-ID: <20210816102022.GU5047@twin.jikos.cz> Reply-To: dsterba@suse.cz Mail-Followup-To: dsterba@suse.cz, Chris Murphy , Btrfs BTRFS References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23.1-rc1 (2014-03-12) Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Aug 13, 2021 at 10:33:05PM -0600, Chris Murphy wrote: > I get the following call trace about 0.6s after dnf completes an > update which I imagine deletes many files. I'll try to reproduce and > get /proc/lock_stat > > [ 95.674507] kernel: BUG: MAX_LOCKDEP_CHAIN_HLOCKS too low! The message "BUG: MAX_LOCKDEP_CHAIN_HLOCKS too low" is related to lockdep and not a btrfs problem, but it appears from time to time and as Johannes said either increase the config variable, or ignore it.