From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1752674AbcC3JuP (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Wed, 30 Mar 2016 05:50:15 -0400
Received: from bombadil.infradead.org ([198.137.202.9]:34046 "EHLO
	bombadil.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1751964AbcC3JuL (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Wed, 30 Mar 2016 05:50:11 -0400
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2016 11:50:06 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Cc: Alfredo Alvarez Fernandez <alfredoalvarezfernandez@gmail.com>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Sedat Dilek <sedat.dilek@gmail.com>, "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>,
        linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [Linux-v4.6-rc1] ext4: WARNING: CPU: 2 PID: 2692 at
 kernel/locking/lockdep.c:2017 __lock_acquire+0x180e/0x2260
Message-ID: <20160330095006.GC11035@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <CA+icZUVLbBD4xc7OjV112KHhxAnW_t3Fcpjht2SjVAo3Ds-Hrg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+icZUXgSK5VY7zJQ0bZZwKZmeYS+A7BRQD2fBBSzK=sM2aMLw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+55aFw-YXACVasN4n0h03QWgWWwvBray2fcMScAnEn0Wy_Ohw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20160327204810.GW6356@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20160329084701.GA9393@gmail.com>
 <20160330093659.GS3408@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20160330093659.GS3408@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2012-12-30)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 11:36:59AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 10:47:02AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> > > You are right; this is lockdep running into a hash collision; which is a new 
> > > DEBUG_LOCKDEP test. See 9e4e7554e755 ("locking/lockdep: Detect chain_key 
> > > collisions").
> > 
> > I've Cc:-ed Alfredo Alvarez Fernandez who added that test.
> 
> OK, so while the code in check_no_collision() seems sensible, it relies
> on borken bits.
> 
> The whole chain_hlocks and /proc/lockdep_chains stuff appears to have
> been buggered from the start.
> 
> The below patch should fix this.

Note that unless we had more than 65536 chain_hlocks consumed the patch
would not make a difference.

> Furthermore, our hash function has definite room for improvement.

And no matter how good we make it, a u64 hash is bound to collide at
some point (or of any size really).

Also, we could make them non-fatal, returning true from
lookup_chain_cache() is always correct (_very_ expensive, but correct),
so in case of doubt we could just return true.