public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* 2.6.18-rc5-mm1 + all hotfixes -- BUG: MAX_STACK_TRACE_ENTRIES too low!
@ 2006-09-03  3:03 Miles Lane
  2006-09-03  4:20 ` Andrew Morton
  2006-09-03 12:54 ` Ingo Molnar
  0 siblings, 2 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Miles Lane @ 2006-09-03  3:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Andrew Morton, LKML

Sorry Andrew.  I don't see clues here to help me target the report to
a maintainer.
I hope this helps.

BUG: MAX_STACK_TRACE_ENTRIES too low!
turning off the locking correctness validator.
 [<c1003c97>] dump_trace+0x69/0x1b7
 [<c1003dfa>] show_trace_log_lvl+0x15/0x28
 [<c10040f5>] show_trace+0x16/0x19
 [<c1004110>] dump_stack+0x18/0x1d
 [<c102d4d0>] save_trace+0xbb/0xc8
 [<c102d53c>] add_lock_to_list+0x5f/0x7d
 [<c102f3ce>] __lock_acquire+0x93b/0x9f8
 [<c102f75e>] lock_acquire+0x56/0x74
 [<c11dcdb0>] _spin_lock+0x24/0x32
 [<c105471f>] anon_vma_prepare+0x46/0xce
 [<c1050014>] __handle_mm_fault+0xed/0x804
 [<c1012c1a>] do_page_fault+0x214/0x4c1
 [<c11dd629>] error_code+0x39/0x40
DWARF2 unwinder stuck at error_code+0x39/0x40

Leftover inexact backtrace:

 [<c1003dfa>] show_trace_log_lvl+0x15/0x28
 [<c10040f5>] show_trace+0x16/0x19
 [<c1004110>] dump_stack+0x18/0x1d
 [<c102d4d0>] save_trace+0xbb/0xc8
 [<c102d53c>] add_lock_to_list+0x5f/0x7d
 [<c102f3ce>] __lock_acquire+0x93b/0x9f8
 [<c102f75e>] lock_acquire+0x56/0x74
 [<c11dcdb0>] _spin_lock+0x24/0x32
 [<c105471f>] anon_vma_prepare+0x46/0xce
 [<c1050014>] __handle_mm_fault+0xed/0x804
 [<c1012c1a>] do_page_fault+0x214/0x4c1
 [<c11dd629>] error_code+0x39/0x40
 [<c105fe67>] do_sync_read+0xb8/0xf2
 [<c10601e1>] vfs_read+0xa7/0x149
 [<c1060a81>] sys_read+0x3a/0x61
 [<c1002d41>] sysenter_past_esp+0x56/0x8d
 =======================

-- 
VGER BF report: H 0.0999452

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread

* Re: 2.6.18-rc5-mm1 + all hotfixes -- BUG: MAX_STACK_TRACE_ENTRIES too low!
  2006-09-03  3:03 2.6.18-rc5-mm1 + all hotfixes -- BUG: MAX_STACK_TRACE_ENTRIES too low! Miles Lane
@ 2006-09-03  4:20 ` Andrew Morton
  2006-09-03 12:54 ` Ingo Molnar
  1 sibling, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Andrew Morton @ 2006-09-03  4:20 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Miles Lane; +Cc: LKML

On Sat, 2 Sep 2006 20:03:46 -0700
"Miles Lane" <miles.lane@gmail.com> wrote:

> Sorry Andrew.  I don't see clues here to help me target the report to
> a maintainer.
> I hope this helps.
> 
> BUG: MAX_STACK_TRACE_ENTRIES too low!

That would be an Ingo thing, but he's having a bit of downtime.

-- 
VGER BF report: H 0.298568

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread

* Re: 2.6.18-rc5-mm1 + all hotfixes -- BUG: MAX_STACK_TRACE_ENTRIES too low!
  2006-09-03  3:03 2.6.18-rc5-mm1 + all hotfixes -- BUG: MAX_STACK_TRACE_ENTRIES too low! Miles Lane
  2006-09-03  4:20 ` Andrew Morton
@ 2006-09-03 12:54 ` Ingo Molnar
  2006-09-03 17:05   ` Miles Lane
  1 sibling, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Ingo Molnar @ 2006-09-03 12:54 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Miles Lane; +Cc: Andrew Morton, LKML


* Miles Lane <miles.lane@gmail.com> wrote:

> Sorry Andrew.  I don't see clues here to help me target the report to 
> a maintainer. I hope this helps.
> 
> BUG: MAX_STACK_TRACE_ENTRIES too low!
> turning off the locking correctness validator.

Miles, could you try the patch below? (Andrew: if this solves Miles' 
problem then i think this is v2.6.18 material too. [The other 
possibility would be some permanent stack-trace entries leak, in which 
case the patch will not help. If that happens then we'll have to debug 
this some more.])

	Ingo

---------------->
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Subject: lockdep: double the number of stack-trace entries

Miles Lane reported the "BUG: MAX_STACK_TRACE_ENTRIES too low!" message,
which means that during normal use his system produced enough lockdep
events so that the 128-thousand entries stack-trace array got exhausted.
Double the size of the array.

Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
---
 kernel/lockdep_internals.h |    2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

Index: linux/kernel/lockdep_internals.h
===================================================================
--- linux.orig/kernel/lockdep_internals.h
+++ linux/kernel/lockdep_internals.h
@@ -27,7 +27,7 @@
  * Stack-trace: tightly packed array of stack backtrace
  * addresses. Protected by the hash_lock.
  */
-#define MAX_STACK_TRACE_ENTRIES	131072UL
+#define MAX_STACK_TRACE_ENTRIES	262144UL
 
 extern struct list_head all_lock_classes;
 

-- 
VGER BF report: U 0.5

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread

* Re: 2.6.18-rc5-mm1 + all hotfixes -- BUG: MAX_STACK_TRACE_ENTRIES too low!
  2006-09-03 12:54 ` Ingo Molnar
@ 2006-09-03 17:05   ` Miles Lane
  2006-09-03 18:15     ` Miles Lane
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Miles Lane @ 2006-09-03 17:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Ingo Molnar; +Cc: Andrew Morton, LKML

On 9/3/06, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> wrote:
>
> * Miles Lane <miles.lane@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Sorry Andrew.  I don't see clues here to help me target the report to
> > a maintainer. I hope this helps.
> >
> > BUG: MAX_STACK_TRACE_ENTRIES too low!
> > turning off the locking correctness validator.
>
> Miles, could you try the patch below? (Andrew: if this solves Miles'
> problem then i think this is v2.6.18 material too. [The other
> possibility would be some permanent stack-trace entries leak, in which
> case the patch will not help. If that happens then we'll have to debug
> this some more.])
>
>         Ingo
>
> ---------------->
> From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
> Subject: lockdep: double the number of stack-trace entries
>
> Miles Lane reported the "BUG: MAX_STACK_TRACE_ENTRIES too low!" message,
> which means that during normal use his system produced enough lockdep
> events so that the 128-thousand entries stack-trace array got exhausted.
> Double the size of the array.
>
> Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
> ---
>  kernel/lockdep_internals.h |    2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> Index: linux/kernel/lockdep_internals.h
> ===================================================================
> --- linux.orig/kernel/lockdep_internals.h
> +++ linux/kernel/lockdep_internals.h
> @@ -27,7 +27,7 @@
>   * Stack-trace: tightly packed array of stack backtrace
>   * addresses. Protected by the hash_lock.
>   */
> -#define MAX_STACK_TRACE_ENTRIES        131072UL
> +#define MAX_STACK_TRACE_ENTRIES        262144UL
>
>  extern struct list_head all_lock_classes;
>
>

Ingo, there seemed to be a difference between the file you editted and
 the one in Andrew's tree.  I remade you patch so it applies cleanly.
I'll test and let you know.  One word of caution, I only hit the
problem once and I'm not sure how to trigger the condition.  I'll do
my best.

Thanks,
        Miles

--- kernel/lockdep_internals.h~ 2006-09-03 09:59:29.000000000 -0700
+++ kernel/lockdep_internals.h  2006-09-03 10:00:55.000000000 -0700
@@ -27,7 +27,7 @@
  * Stack-trace: tightly packed array of stack backtrace
  * addresses. Protected by the hash_lock.
  */
-#define MAX_STACK_TRACE_ENTRIES        131072UL
+#define MAX_STACK_TRACE_ENTRIES        262144UL

 extern struct list_head all_lock_classes;

-- 
VGER BF report: H 0.0351707

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread

* Re: 2.6.18-rc5-mm1 + all hotfixes -- BUG: MAX_STACK_TRACE_ENTRIES too low!
  2006-09-03 17:05   ` Miles Lane
@ 2006-09-03 18:15     ` Miles Lane
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Miles Lane @ 2006-09-03 18:15 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Ingo Molnar; +Cc: Andrew Morton, LKML

On 9/3/06, Miles Lane <miles.lane@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 9/3/06, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> wrote:
> >
> > * Miles Lane <miles.lane@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Sorry Andrew.  I don't see clues here to help me target the report to
> > > a maintainer. I hope this helps.
> > >
> > > BUG: MAX_STACK_TRACE_ENTRIES too low!
> > > turning off the locking correctness validator.
> >
> > Miles, could you try the patch below? (Andrew: if this solves Miles'
> > problem then i think this is v2.6.18 material too. [The other
> > possibility would be some permanent stack-trace entries leak, in which
> > case the patch will not help. If that happens then we'll have to debug
> > this some more.])
> >
> >         Ingo
> >
> > ---------------->
> > From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
> > Subject: lockdep: double the number of stack-trace entries
> >
> > Miles Lane reported the "BUG: MAX_STACK_TRACE_ENTRIES too low!" message,
> > which means that during normal use his system produced enough lockdep
> > events so that the 128-thousand entries stack-trace array got exhausted.
> > Double the size of the array.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
> > ---
> >  kernel/lockdep_internals.h |    2 +-
> >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > Index: linux/kernel/lockdep_internals.h
> > ===================================================================
> > --- linux.orig/kernel/lockdep_internals.h
> > +++ linux/kernel/lockdep_internals.h
> > @@ -27,7 +27,7 @@
> >   * Stack-trace: tightly packed array of stack backtrace
> >   * addresses. Protected by the hash_lock.
> >   */
> > -#define MAX_STACK_TRACE_ENTRIES        131072UL
> > +#define MAX_STACK_TRACE_ENTRIES        262144UL
> >
> >  extern struct list_head all_lock_classes;
> >
> >
>
> Ingo, there seemed to be a difference between the file you editted and
>  the one in Andrew's tree.  I remade you patch so it applies cleanly.
> I'll test and let you know.  One word of caution, I only hit the
> problem once and I'm not sure how to trigger the condition.  I'll do
> my best.
>
> Thanks,
>         Miles
>
> --- kernel/lockdep_internals.h~ 2006-09-03 09:59:29.000000000 -0700
> +++ kernel/lockdep_internals.h  2006-09-03 10:00:55.000000000 -0700
> @@ -27,7 +27,7 @@
>   * Stack-trace: tightly packed array of stack backtrace
>   * addresses. Protected by the hash_lock.
>   */
> -#define MAX_STACK_TRACE_ENTRIES        131072UL
> +#define MAX_STACK_TRACE_ENTRIES        262144UL
>
>  extern struct list_head all_lock_classes;
>

By the way, after making this change "make all install modules
modules_install" didn't seem to notice that the file had been
modified.  I backed up .config, ran "make mrproper", etc.  Is this a
build dependency checker bug?

Thanks,
        Miles

-- 
VGER BF report: H 4.35163e-06

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread

end of thread, other threads:[~2006-09-03 18:16 UTC | newest]

Thread overview: 5+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2006-09-03  3:03 2.6.18-rc5-mm1 + all hotfixes -- BUG: MAX_STACK_TRACE_ENTRIES too low! Miles Lane
2006-09-03  4:20 ` Andrew Morton
2006-09-03 12:54 ` Ingo Molnar
2006-09-03 17:05   ` Miles Lane
2006-09-03 18:15     ` Miles Lane

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox