Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 26 Jan 2023 14:51:42 -0800 | From | Boqun Feng <> | Subject | Re: BUG: MAX_LOCKDEP_CHAIN_HLOCKS too low! |
| |
On Fri, Jan 27, 2023 at 03:42:52AM +0500, Mikhail Gavrilov wrote: > On Thu, Jan 26, 2023 at 10:39 PM Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > [Cc lock folks] > > > > On Thu, Jan 26, 2023 at 02:47:42PM +0500, Mikhail Gavrilov wrote: > > > On Wed, Jan 25, 2023 at 10:21 PM David Sterba <dsterba@suse.cz> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jan 25, 2023 at 01:27:48AM +0500, Mikhail Gavrilov wrote: > > > > > On Tue, Jul 26, 2022 at 9:47 PM David Sterba <dsterba@suse.cz> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jul 26, 2022 at 05:32:54PM +0500, Mikhail Gavrilov wrote: > > > > > > > Hi guys. > > > > > > > Always with intensive writing on a btrfs volume, the message "BUG: > > > > > > > MAX_LOCKDEP_CHAIN_HLOCKS too low!" appears in the kernel logs. > > > > > > > > > > > > Increase the config value of LOCKDEP_CHAINS_BITS, default is 16, 18 > > > > > > tends to work. > > > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > Today I was able to get the message "BUG: MAX_LOCKDEP_CHAIN_HLOCKS too > > > > > low!" again even with LOCKDEP_CHAINS_BITS=18 and kernel 6.2-rc5. > > > > > > > > > > ❯ cat /boot/config-`uname -r` | grep LOCKDEP_CHAINS_BITS > > > > > CONFIG_LOCKDEP_CHAINS_BITS=18 > > > > > > > > > > [88685.088099] BUG: MAX_LOCKDEP_CHAIN_HLOCKS too low! > > > > > [88685.088124] turning off the locking correctness validator. > > > > > [88685.088133] Please attach the output of /proc/lock_stat to the bug report > > > > > [88685.088142] CPU: 14 PID: 1749746 Comm: mv Tainted: G W L > > > > > ------- --- 6.2.0-0.rc5.20230123git2475bf0250de.38.fc38.x86_64 #1 > > > > > [88685.088154] Hardware name: System manufacturer System Product > > > > > Name/ROG STRIX X570-I GAMING, BIOS 4408 10/28/2022 > > > > > > > > > > What's next? Increase this value to 19? > > > > > > > > Yes, though increasing the value is a workaround so you may see the > > > > warning again. > > > > > > Is there any sense in this WARNING if we would ignore it and every > > > time increase the threshold value? > > > > Lockdep uses static allocated array to track lock holdings chains to > > avoid dynmaic memory allocation in its own code. So if you see the > > warning it means your test has more combination of lock holdings than > > the array can record. In other words, you reach the resource limitation, > > and in that sense it makes sense to just ignore it and increase the > > value: you want to give lockdep enough resource to work, right? > > It is needed for correct working btrfs. David, am I right? > > > > > > May Be set 99 right away? Or remove such a check condition? > > > > That requires having 2^99 * 5 * sizeof(u16) memory for lock holding > > chains array.. > > > > However, a few other options we can try in lockdep are: > > > > * warn but not turn off the lockdep: the lock holding chain is > > only a cache for what lock holding combination lockdep has ever > > see, we also record the dependency in the graph. Without the > > lock holding chain, lockdep can still work but just slower. > > > > * allow dynmaic memory allocation in lockdep: I think this might > > be OK since we have lockdep_recursion to avoid lockdep code -> > > mm code -> lockdep code -> mm code ... deadlock. But maybe I'm > > missing something. And even we allow it, the use of memory > > doesn't change, you will still need that amout of memory to > > track lock holding chains. > > > > 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). >
Lockdep is a dev tool to help finding out deadlocks, and it introduces cost when enabled, although it's possible, I doubt no one will run LOCKDEP enabled kernel in production environment. In other words, it's a debug/test-kernel-only option.
Regards, Boqun
> It would be great if the chosen value would simply work always > everywhere. 30? ok! But as I understand, btrfs does not have any > guarantees for this. David, am I right? > > Anyway, thank you for keeping the conversation going. > > -- > Best Regards, > Mike Gavrilov.
| |