| To: | "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: xfs lockdep trace after unlink |
| From: | Dave Jones <davej@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Tue, 8 Oct 2013 17:59:47 -0400 |
| Cc: | Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| Delivered-to: | xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <20131008213910.GX5790@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Mail-followup-to: | Dave Jones <davej@xxxxxxxxxx>, "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| References: | <20131008212056.GA7467@xxxxxxxxxx> <20131008213910.GX5790@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| User-agent: | Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) |
On Tue, Oct 08, 2013 at 02:39:10PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 08, 2013 at 05:20:56PM -0400, Dave Jones wrote:
> > I was deleting a kernel tree, when this happened..
> > RCU, or xfs ?
> >
> > BUG: MAX_LOCKDEP_CHAINS too low!
>
> I have to ask... What happens when you bump up MAX_LOCKDEP_CHAINS?
We eat up a even more memory I guess.
kernel/lockdep_internals.h:#define MAX_LOCKDEP_CHAINS_BITS 15
kernel/lockdep_internals.h:#define MAX_LOCKDEP_CHAINS (1UL <<
MAX_LOCKDEP_CHAINS_BITS)
I had to increase MAX_LOCKDEP_ENTRIES on my local tree already because
I was hitting that limit.
> There is a patch to avoid an RCU/scheduler/perf deadlock, which may
> be found below. But this stack doesn't look to me to be matching that
> deadlock.
I'll add that to my tree until it gets mainlined.
thanks,
Dave
|
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: xfs lockdep trace after unlink, Paul E. McKenney |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | [PATCH 0/2] xfsdump: 2 more fixes, Eric Sandeen |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: xfs lockdep trace after unlink, Paul E. McKenney |
| Next by Thread: | [PATCH 0/2] xfsdump: 2 more fixes, Eric Sandeen |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |