Re: lockdep: BUG: MAX_LOCKDEP_ENTRIES too low!

[Ingo Molnar]

* Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 09:02:14AM -0500, Sasha Levin wrote:
> > On 12/19/2013 05:34 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > >On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 12:53:56AM -0500, Sasha Levin wrote:
> > >>Hi all,
> > >>
> > >>I think that my bloated kernel managed to create way too many entries in the
> > >>dependency table. If that sounds right, I can send a patch to increase those.
> > >>
> > >>Attached /proc/lock_stat as requested as well.
> > >
> > >/proc/lockdep_stats not lock_stat :-)
> > >
> > >Do you still happen to have that?
> > 
> > Is the BUG message intentional ("Please attach the output of /proc/lock_stat to the bug report")?
> 
> It does? This happened when I wasn't looking..
> 
> Commit 199e371f59d31 did that; and the Changelog fails to mention why or
> what. Ingo, Dave?

Simple oversight I think, should be fixed.

> [...]
>
> One might argue that the validator should be modified to allow lock 
> classes to be reused.  However, if you are tempted to make this 
> argument, first review the code and think through the changes that 
> would be required, keeping in mind that the lock classes to be 
> removed are likely to be linked into the lock-dependency graph.  
> This turns out to be harder to do than to say.

Yes, an append-only data structure was a conscious simplification I 
decided on very early. (It also increases general robustness if your 
data structure can never go away.)

Thanks,

	Ingo
--
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/