[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Y9NN9CFWc40oxmzP@boqun-archlinux>
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2023 20:07:16 -0800
From: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>
To: Chris Murphy <lists@...orremedies.com>
Cc: Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>,
Михаил Гаврилов
<mikhail.v.gavrilov@...il.com>, David Sterba <dsterba@...e.cz>,
Btrfs BTRFS <linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>
Subject: Re: BUG: MAX_LOCKDEP_CHAIN_HLOCKS too low!
On Thu, Jan 26, 2023 at 10:37:56PM -0500, Chris Murphy wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 26, 2023, at 7:20 PM, Waiman Long wrote:
> > On 1/26/23 17:42, Mikhail Gavrilov wrote:
> >>> I'm not sure whether these options are better than just increasing the
> >>> number, maybe to unblock your ASAP, you can try make it 30 and make sure
> >>> you have large enough memory to test.
> >> About just to increase the LOCKDEP_CHAINS_BITS by 1. Where should this
> >> be done? In vanilla kernel on kernel.org? In a specific distribution?
> >> or the user must rebuild the kernel himself? Maybe increase
> >> LOCKDEP_CHAINS_BITS by 1 is most reliable solution, but it difficult
> >> to distribute to end users because the meaning of using packaged
> >> distributions is lost (user should change LOCKDEP_CHAINS_BITS in
> >> config and rebuild the kernel by yourself).
> >
> > Note that lockdep is typically only enabled in a debug kernel shipped by
> > a distro because of the high performance overhead. The non-debug kernel
> > doesn't have lockdep enabled. When LOCKDEP_CHAINS_BITS isn't big enough
> > when testing on the debug kernel, you can file a ticket to the distro
> > asking for an increase in CONFIG_LOCKDEP_CHAIN_BITS. Or you can build
> > your own debug kernel with a bigger CONFIG_LOCKDEP_CHAIN_BITS.
>
> Fedora bumped CONFIG_LOCKDEP_CHAINS_BITS=17 to 18 just 6 months ago for debug kernels.
> https://gitlab.com/cki-project/kernel-ark/-/merge_requests/1921
>
> If 19 the recommended value I don't mind sending an MR for it. But if
> the idea is we're going to be back here talking about bumping it to 20
> in six months, I'd like to avoid that.
>
How about a boot parameter then?
Regards,
Boqun
>
>
> --
> Chris Murphy
Powered by blists - more mailing lists