lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [May]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: "BUG: MAX_LOCKDEP_ENTRIES too low" with 6979 "&type->s_umount_key"
From
Date
On 5/15/20 1:21 AM, Qian Cai wrote:
> Lockdep is screwed here in next-20200514 due to "BUG: MAX_LOCKDEP_ENTRIES too low". One of the traces below pointed to this linux-next commit,
>
> 8c8e824d4ef0 watch_queue: Introduce a non-repeating system-unique superblock ID
>
> which was accidentally just showed up in next-20200514 along with,
>
> 46896d79c514 watch_queue: Add superblock notifications
>
> I did have here,
>
> CONFIG_SB_NOTIFICATIONS=y
> CONFIG_MOUNT_NOTIFICATIONS=y
> CONFIG_FSINFO=y
>
> While MAX_LOCKDEP_ENTRIES is 32768, I noticed there is one type of lock had a lot along,
>
> # grep 'type->s_umount_key’ /proc/lockdep_chains | wc -l
> 6979

The lock_list table entries are for tracking a lock's forward and
backward dependencies. The lockdep_chains isn't the right lockdep file
to look at. Instead, check the lockdep files for entries with the
maximum BD (backward dependency) + FD (forward dependency). That will
give you a better view of which locks are consuming most of the
lock_list entries. Also take a look at lockdep_stats for an overall view
of how much various table entries are being consumed.

Cheers,
Longman


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-05-17 03:17    [W:0.038 / U:0.292 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site