[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ee1cd751-cc8a-ca03-e30c-34b4cf8a13bf@acm.org>
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2019 08:47:00 -0700
From: Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
Yuyang Du <duyuyang@...il.com>,
Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] locking/lockdep: Reduce space occupied by stack
traces
On 7/23/19 9:56 PM, Eric Biggers wrote:
> Does this also fix any of the other bugs listed at
> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20190710055838.GC2152@sol.localdomain/
> ?
>
> BUG: MAX_LOCKDEP_CHAIN_HLOCKS too low!
> BUG: MAX_LOCKDEP_CHAINS too low!
> BUG: MAX_LOCK_DEPTH too low! (2)
> BUG: MAX_LOCKDEP_ENTRIES too low!
Hi Eric,
I don't think so. This patch only affects the space occupied by stack
traces and not the space occupied by any of the other lockdep data
strutures. BTW, in that report I found the following:
Title: BUG: MAX_LOCKDEP_CHAINS too low!
Last occurred: 5 days ago
Reported: 284 days ago
Title: BUG: MAX_LOCK_DEPTH too low! (2)
Last occurred: 362 days ago
Reported: 392 days ago
Since these bugs were reported more than 150 days ago these bugs are
older than my lockdep changes and hence not a regression due to my
lockdep changes.
My patch series did not increase the number of "list_entries" tracked by
lockdep so I don't think that the "BUG: MAX_LOCKDEP_ENTRIES too low"
behavior can be triggered more easily due to my lockdep changes.
The "BUG: MAX_LOCKDEP_CHAIN_HLOCKS too low!" complaint however may be
related. I will check whether it is possible to reduce the space
occupied by held lock chains again to what was needed before my patch
series.
Bart.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists