From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755124Ab3LSQwF (ORCPT ); Thu, 19 Dec 2013 11:52:05 -0500 Received: from userp1040.oracle.com ([156.151.31.81]:28525 "EHLO userp1040.oracle.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752777Ab3LSQwD (ORCPT ); Thu, 19 Dec 2013 11:52:03 -0500 Message-ID: <52B32410.9050802@oracle.com> Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2013 11:51:28 -0500 From: Sasha Levin User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Dave Jones , Peter Zijlstra , Ingo Molnar , LKML Subject: Re: lockdep: BUG: MAX_LOCKDEP_ENTRIES too low! References: <52B289F4.7060205@oracle.com> <20131219103401.GE30183@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> <52B2FC66.9010309@oracle.com> <20131219152002.GK16438@laptop.programming.kicks-ass.net> <52B3134D.2010203@oracle.com> <20131219155121.GL16438@laptop.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20131219155917.GB25771@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <20131219155917.GB25771@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Source-IP: acsinet21.oracle.com [141.146.126.237] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 12/19/2013 10:59 AM, Dave Jones wrote: > On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 04:51:21PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 10:39:57AM -0500, Sasha Levin wrote: > > > That discusses lockdep classes, which is actually fine in my case. I ran out of > > > MAX_LOCKDEP_ENTRIES, which isn't mentioned anywhere in Documentation/ . > > > > Yeah, it suffers from the same problem though. Lockdep has static > > resource allocation and never frees them. > > > > The lock classes are the smallest pool and usually run out first, but > > the same could happen for the entries, after all, the more classes we > > have the more class connections can happen. > > > > Anyway, barring a leak and silly class mistakes like mentioned in the > > document there's nothing we can do except raise the number. > > I tried this. When you bump it to 32k, it fares better but then you > start seeing "BUG: MAX_LOCKDEP_CHAINS too low!" instead. > I've not tried bumping that yet, as I've stopped seeing these lately > due to hitting more serious bugs first. Yeah, I see what you're saying. After upping that to 32k I've hit MAX_STACK_TRACE_ENTRIES. Going to try upping that and see how that goes. Thanks, Sasha