* [PATCH 3/3] Increase lockdep limits: MAX_LOCKDEP_CHAINS_BITS @ 2009-07-07 15:25 Joao Correia 2009-07-07 15:32 ` Peter Zijlstra 2009-07-08 18:34 ` Peter Zijlstra 0 siblings, 2 replies; 6+ messages in thread From: Joao Correia @ 2009-07-07 15:25 UTC (permalink / raw) To: LKML; +Cc: Amerigo Wang, a.p.zijlstra (Applies to current Linus tree, as of 2.6.31-rc2) A third limit becomes apparent as being too low after raising MAX_STACK_TRACE_ENTRIES and MAX_LOCK_DEPTH, although this one is more elusive to trigger. Signed-off-by: Joao Correia <joaomiguelcorreia@gmail.com> --- kernel/lockdep_internals.h | 2 +- 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) diff --git a/kernel/lockdep_internals.h b/kernel/lockdep_internals.h index 699a2ac..93af1f1 100644 --- a/kernel/lockdep_internals.h +++ b/kernel/lockdep_internals.h @@ -56,7 +56,7 @@ enum { */ #define MAX_LOCKDEP_ENTRIES 16384UL -#define MAX_LOCKDEP_CHAINS_BITS 15 +#define MAX_LOCKDEP_CHAINS_BITS 16 #define MAX_LOCKDEP_CHAINS (1UL << MAX_LOCKDEP_CHAINS_BITS) #define MAX_LOCKDEP_CHAIN_HLOCKS (MAX_LOCKDEP_CHAINS*5) --- ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 3/3] Increase lockdep limits: MAX_LOCKDEP_CHAINS_BITS 2009-07-07 15:25 [PATCH 3/3] Increase lockdep limits: MAX_LOCKDEP_CHAINS_BITS Joao Correia @ 2009-07-07 15:32 ` Peter Zijlstra 2009-07-08 18:34 ` Peter Zijlstra 1 sibling, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread From: Peter Zijlstra @ 2009-07-07 15:32 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Joao Correia; +Cc: LKML, Amerigo Wang On Tue, 2009-07-07 at 16:25 +0100, Joao Correia wrote: > (Applies to current Linus tree, as of 2.6.31-rc2) > > A third limit becomes apparent as being too low after raising > MAX_STACK_TRACE_ENTRIES and MAX_LOCK_DEPTH, although this one is more > elusive to trigger. Hrmm, I really wonder what takes all these chains, I never run into this stuff. We recently fixed the dma-debug code to generate less classes, could there be more such bugs? > Signed-off-by: Joao Correia <joaomiguelcorreia@gmail.com> > > --- > kernel/lockdep_internals.h | 2 +- > 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/kernel/lockdep_internals.h b/kernel/lockdep_internals.h > index 699a2ac..93af1f1 100644 > --- a/kernel/lockdep_internals.h > +++ b/kernel/lockdep_internals.h > @@ -56,7 +56,7 @@ enum { > */ > #define MAX_LOCKDEP_ENTRIES 16384UL > > -#define MAX_LOCKDEP_CHAINS_BITS 15 > +#define MAX_LOCKDEP_CHAINS_BITS 16 > #define MAX_LOCKDEP_CHAINS (1UL << MAX_LOCKDEP_CHAINS_BITS) > > #define MAX_LOCKDEP_CHAIN_HLOCKS (MAX_LOCKDEP_CHAINS*5) > --- ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 3/3] Increase lockdep limits: MAX_LOCKDEP_CHAINS_BITS 2009-07-07 15:25 [PATCH 3/3] Increase lockdep limits: MAX_LOCKDEP_CHAINS_BITS Joao Correia 2009-07-07 15:32 ` Peter Zijlstra @ 2009-07-08 18:34 ` Peter Zijlstra 2009-07-08 19:32 ` Joao Correia 1 sibling, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread From: Peter Zijlstra @ 2009-07-08 18:34 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Joao Correia; +Cc: LKML, Amerigo Wang On Tue, 2009-07-07 at 16:25 +0100, Joao Correia wrote: > (Applies to current Linus tree, as of 2.6.31-rc2) > > A third limit becomes apparent as being too low after raising > MAX_STACK_TRACE_ENTRIES and MAX_LOCK_DEPTH, although this one is more > elusive to trigger. Would this involve reloading modules a lot? ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 3/3] Increase lockdep limits: MAX_LOCKDEP_CHAINS_BITS 2009-07-08 18:34 ` Peter Zijlstra @ 2009-07-08 19:32 ` Joao Correia 2009-07-08 19:33 ` Joao Correia 0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread From: Joao Correia @ 2009-07-08 19:32 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Peter Zijlstra; +Cc: LKML, Amerigo Wang On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 7:34 PM, Peter Zijlstra<a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl> wrote: > On Tue, 2009-07-07 at 16:25 +0100, Joao Correia wrote: >> (Applies to current Linus tree, as of 2.6.31-rc2) >> >> A third limit becomes apparent as being too low after raising >> MAX_STACK_TRACE_ENTRIES and MAX_LOCK_DEPTH, although this one is more >> elusive to trigger. > > Would this involve reloading modules a lot? > > All the other limits were triggered immediatly upon boot. This one happens during regular system usage, after a couple of hours. Not loading more modules than needed, the system stays at around 45 modules loaded, give or take. I do have qemu running, if that helps anything. Joao Correia ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 3/3] Increase lockdep limits: MAX_LOCKDEP_CHAINS_BITS 2009-07-08 19:32 ` Joao Correia @ 2009-07-08 19:33 ` Joao Correia 2009-07-10 20:34 ` Dave Jones 0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread From: Joao Correia @ 2009-07-08 19:33 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Peter Zijlstra; +Cc: LKML, Amerigo Wang On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 8:32 PM, Joao Correia<joaomiguelcorreia@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 7:34 PM, Peter Zijlstra<a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl> wrote: >> On Tue, 2009-07-07 at 16:25 +0100, Joao Correia wrote: >>> (Applies to current Linus tree, as of 2.6.31-rc2) >>> >>> A third limit becomes apparent as being too low after raising >>> MAX_STACK_TRACE_ENTRIES and MAX_LOCK_DEPTH, although this one is more >>> elusive to trigger. >> >> Would this involve reloading modules a lot? >> >> > > All the other limits were triggered immediatly upon boot. This one > happens during regular system usage, after a couple of hours. Not > loading more modules than needed, the system stays at around 45 > modules loaded, give or take. I do have qemu running, if that helps > anything. > > Joao Correia > qemu running as a -host-, not the system running inside it. Just to clear it up. Joao Correia ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 3/3] Increase lockdep limits: MAX_LOCKDEP_CHAINS_BITS 2009-07-08 19:33 ` Joao Correia @ 2009-07-10 20:34 ` Dave Jones 0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread From: Dave Jones @ 2009-07-10 20:34 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Joao Correia; +Cc: Peter Zijlstra, LKML, Amerigo Wang On Wed, Jul 08, 2009 at 08:33:37PM +0100, Joao Correia wrote: > On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 8:32 PM, Joao Correia<joaomiguelcorreia@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 7:34 PM, Peter Zijlstra<a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl> wrote: > >> On Tue, 2009-07-07 at 16:25 +0100, Joao Correia wrote: > >>> (Applies to current Linus tree, as of 2.6.31-rc2) > >>> > >>> A third limit becomes apparent as being too low after raising > >>> MAX_STACK_TRACE_ENTRIES and MAX_LOCK_DEPTH, although this one is more > >>> elusive to trigger. > >> > >> Would this involve reloading modules a lot? > >> > >> > > > > All the other limits were triggered immediatly upon boot. This one > > happens during regular system usage, after a couple of hours. Not > > loading more modules than needed, the system stays at around 45 > > modules loaded, give or take. I do have qemu running, if that helps > > anything. > > > > Joao Correia > > > > qemu running as a -host-, not the system running inside it. Just to clear it up. Could you upload your /proc/lockdep someplace ? Maybe there's some obvious clues in there like the ones we saw in mine. Dave ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2009-07-10 20:34 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 6+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2009-07-07 15:25 [PATCH 3/3] Increase lockdep limits: MAX_LOCKDEP_CHAINS_BITS Joao Correia 2009-07-07 15:32 ` Peter Zijlstra 2009-07-08 18:34 ` Peter Zijlstra 2009-07-08 19:32 ` Joao Correia 2009-07-08 19:33 ` Joao Correia 2009-07-10 20:34 ` Dave Jones
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox