[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <52B3134D.2010203@oracle.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2013 10:39:57 -0500
From: Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@...cle.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
CC: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: lockdep: BUG: MAX_LOCKDEP_ENTRIES too low!
On 12/19/2013 10:20 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 09:02:14AM -0500, Sasha Levin wrote:
>> On 12/19/2013 05:34 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>> On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 12:53:56AM -0500, Sasha Levin wrote:
>>>> Hi all,
>>>>
>>>> I think that my bloated kernel managed to create way too many entries in the
>>>> dependency table. If that sounds right, I can send a patch to increase those.
>>>>
>>>> Attached /proc/lock_stat as requested as well.
>>>
>>> /proc/lockdep_stats not lock_stat :-)
>>>
>>> Do you still happen to have that?
>>
>> Is the BUG message intentional ("Please attach the output of /proc/lock_stat to the bug report")?
>
> It does? This happened when I wasn't looking..
>
> Commit 199e371f59d31 did that; and the Changelog fails to mention why or
> what. Ingo, Dave?
>
> So the thing I referred to was from Documentation/lockdep-design.txt:
[snip]
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/ .
Thanks,
Sasha
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists