Re: [PATCH v3] lockdep: Make MAX_STACK_TRACE_ENTRIES configurable.

[Peter Zijlstra]

On Wed, 2010-04-21 at 05:47 -0600, Gregory Haskins wrote:
> 
> I am not sure if Johns solution is the right/best one per se, but I can attest
> that I used to hit this problem _all_ the time and it was somewhat annoying
> to need to patch the kernel on all of my machines to fix it.  I realize that I
> perhaps do not represent the average user, but it was a pain-point for me.
> FWIW, John's patch would indeed make my life easier since I tend to share the
> .config between builds. 

Right, so all I'm wanting to know if its a symptom of some funny or an
actual depletion, in the latter case I think the best solution is to
simply increase the number. In the former case we should of course fix
the real issue instead of making it disappear.

So one case I remember is where some code managed to create 1k classes
where 1 would have sufficed, this resulted in at least 1k extra stack
traces to be stored, consuming vast amounts of stack_entries.

So please, if you can reproduce, look at where these entries are going,
lots of classes with the same name are a good hint that something is
fishy. Classes with more than 13 (4*nr_states + 1) stacks should also
never happen, etc..

Is this specific to -RT, or do we see it without as well? If so, what in
-RT grows this? Are we creating a class per rt_mutex spinlock or
something silly like that?

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/