From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756523AbZBKNCu (ORCPT ); Wed, 11 Feb 2009 08:02:50 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1755080AbZBKNCl (ORCPT ); Wed, 11 Feb 2009 08:02:41 -0500 Received: from casper.infradead.org ([85.118.1.10]:55711 "EHLO casper.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754496AbZBKNCk (ORCPT ); Wed, 11 Feb 2009 08:02:40 -0500 Subject: Re: next-20090211: BUG: MAX_LOCKDEP_SUBCLASSES too low! From: Peter Zijlstra To: Alexander Beregalov Cc: "linux-next@vger.kernel.org" , LKML , Ingo Molnar , Chris Mason In-Reply-To: References: <1234355010.23438.132.camel@twins> <1234355070.23438.133.camel@twins> <1234355201.23438.134.camel@twins> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2009 14:04:27 +0100 Message-Id: <1234357467.23438.151.camel@twins> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.24.3 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 2009-02-11 at 15:52 +0300, Alexander Beregalov wrote: > 2009/2/11 Peter Zijlstra : > > On Wed, 2009-02-11 at 13:24 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > >> On Wed, 2009-02-11 at 13:23 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > >> > On Wed, 2009-02-11 at 15:14 +0300, Alexander Beregalov wrote: > >> > > Hi > >> > > > >> > > Full dmesg is attached. > >> > > > >> > > Lock dependency validator: Copyright (c) 2006 Red Hat, Inc., Ingo Molnar > >> > > .... MAX_LOCKDEP_SUBCLASSES: 8 > >> > > .... MAX_LOCK_DEPTH: 48 > >> > > .... MAX_LOCKDEP_KEYS: 8191 > >> > > .... CLASSHASH_SIZE: 4096 > >> > > .... MAX_LOCKDEP_ENTRIES: 8192 > >> > > .... MAX_LOCKDEP_CHAINS: 16384 > >> > > .... CHAINHASH_SIZE: 8192 > >> > > memory used by lock dependency info: 4351 kB > >> > > per task-struct memory footprint: 2688 bytes > >> > > <..> > >> > > BUG: MAX_LOCKDEP_SUBCLASSES too low! > >> > > turning off the locking correctness validator. > >> > > >> > Is this an allyesconfig or something other massive bloated? > >> > >> Sorry, not playing attention, its SUB classes.. let me look at that, > >> that smells like a rotten annotation. > > > > Could you run with the below patch, so that we can see where this > > happens? Tssk, Chris what you have been doing? > BUG: MAX_LOCKDEP_SUBCLASSES too low! > turning off the locking correctness validator. > Pid: 2105, comm: btrfs-endio-wri Not tainted 2.6.29-rc4-next-20090211-dirty #2 > Call Trace: > [] __lock_acquire+0x6b9/0x12c0 > [] lock_acquire+0x91/0xc0 > [] ? btrfs_tree_lock+0xc4/0x160 > [] _spin_lock_nested+0x46/0x80 > [] ? btrfs_tree_lock+0xc4/0x160 > [] btrfs_tree_lock+0xc4/0x160 > [] ? btrfs_wake_function+0x0/0x10 > [] btrfs_init_new_buffer+0xa6/0x150 > [] btrfs_alloc_free_block+0x81/0x90 > [] __btrfs_cow_block+0x7a6/0xb70 > [] btrfs_cow_block+0x112/0x2d0 > [] btrfs_search_slot+0x223/0xb00 > [] ? sub_preempt_count+0xa9/0xf0 > [] btrfs_lookup_csum+0x61/0x150 > [] ? trace_hardirqs_on+0xd/0x10 > [] btrfs_csum_file_blocks+0xc6/0x7d0 > [] ? kmem_cache_free+0xb5/0x110 > [] ? kmem_cache_free+0xb5/0x110 > [] ? trace_hardirqs_on+0xd/0x10 > [] ? free_extent_state+0x46/0x70 > [] ? clear_extent_bit+0xe2/0x2e0 > [] add_pending_csums+0x4a/0x70 > [] btrfs_finish_ordered_io+0x115/0x1e0 > [] btrfs_writepage_end_io_hook+0x10/0x20 > [] end_bio_extent_writepage+0x104/0x1e0 > [] ? trace_hardirqs_on_caller+0x182/0x1e0 > [] bio_endio+0x1c/0x40 > [] end_workqueue_fn+0xeb/0x120 > [] worker_loop+0x7a/0x1b0 > [] ? worker_loop+0x0/0x1b0 > [] kthread+0x56/0x90 > [] child_rip+0xa/0x20 > [] ? finish_task_switch+0x89/0x110 > [] ? _spin_unlock_irq+0x36/0x60 > [] ? restore_args+0x0/0x30 > [] ? kthread+0x0/0x90 > [] ? child_rip+0x0/0x20