[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1387512333.4860.11.camel@marge.simpson.net>
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2013 05:05:33 +0100
From: Mike Galbraith <bitbucket@...ine.de>
To: Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@...cle.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: lockdep: BUG: MAX_LOCKDEP_ENTRIES too low!
On Thu, 2013-12-19 at 10:59 -0500, 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.
I had the same problem while testdriving a 3.6-rt kernel with lots of
debug enabled.. had to double both ENTRIES/CHAINS to keep lockdep from
running away in a snit.
-Mike
--
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