Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 33BA9C54E94 for ; Thu, 26 Jan 2023 09:48:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S236716AbjAZJsA (ORCPT ); Thu, 26 Jan 2023 04:48:00 -0500 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:51442 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S236606AbjAZJr4 (ORCPT ); Thu, 26 Jan 2023 04:47:56 -0500 Received: from mail-qv1-xf2c.google.com (mail-qv1-xf2c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::f2c]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2238A193D7; Thu, 26 Jan 2023 01:47:54 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-qv1-xf2c.google.com with SMTP id x18so1108031qvl.1; Thu, 26 Jan 2023 01:47:54 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=APkxpFjkHy9aUzQmvgrxYSWiu1YJOzPgwdV41ID/2nc=; b=E0PfS+UOvVynwJtCJQd7jtZepFE3khRvSPHq/PQzlDOd61DH7tWxn0G0Vl5Si625sZ yGrDX5K8Spn5kVlJa+cG1hV6JPMya80xC6ShPbpueZs2kJ4ADc32wsvgfJVLAHW5m9AD mZl9Vl4mo0xvQ1RtuRDmMA9cSzgsTLWvqGjRA9Ij18ReftpgDGwTOBAUU2bV3A4yow77 R3OEeHAHMZXzxqJlIpzpxouf7ihnkRcnyMIeKYWesM3eRbVBzunH3GChNXh0m18sjs2g VevL3lRm4L1udFUphpmx9M/4Rg7ZWZsaACiJDLxr7Mc12Ki4Tci6BO2v03hD3dPR15G4 SZiQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=APkxpFjkHy9aUzQmvgrxYSWiu1YJOzPgwdV41ID/2nc=; b=BZUCInfzsEouSk9VtD+BDwA/jkFGgQ6oTYhxC/gzfqjwJ3lSfkqAbUCkPzi79/+Sz5 IU6WxR9DH7LuhDUsv1RenwPjbj4svitMQeug1SIZqLR5qC5iUjQtksq3ToHbhVAaYod7 w7zA9uj2S2pb5JY3ccFgnPWfoUlPfVJ1QuQa/WOLxk4i9frEPJmE2jWxm250u90HT12E BHxz7k342xoYcrP1QHBBjDX2SCIyduBoSaoxh7NSvb0irqhJxN7WVg2C/fXiMB1MP8Fw tqRKF1Pplz553gw5wJieKC09sVADAXUEUF3yGyDtO24/KWIwVkx172FSfouj7UihDZWb 9ymQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AO0yUKXC7fEKvf9MCt9MSeKiGZumNBy1uDhN0HNOhJr+sJBaW1YtKCvo 7fSJMt2PlPb5g5uAmaS5EHNAYzeq9muvtf5aenY= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AK7set+ZD+LhIVr9zWlp16hzcgj7kOxYisxdQ9lCVNvaTAswU0fpPLO7g0kjdlKvqZeR16vrit71QUsUbFQ8+IVS1Lw= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6214:e6d:b0:537:7a25:2111 with SMTP id jz13-20020a0562140e6d00b005377a252111mr229158qvb.32.1674726473045; Thu, 26 Jan 2023 01:47:53 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20220726164250.GE13489@twin.jikos.cz> <20230125171517.GV11562@twin.jikos.cz> In-Reply-To: <20230125171517.GV11562@twin.jikos.cz> From: Mikhail Gavrilov Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2023 14:47:42 +0500 Message-ID: Subject: Re: BUG: MAX_LOCKDEP_CHAIN_HLOCKS too low! To: dsterba@suse.cz, boqun.feng@gmail.com Cc: Btrfs BTRFS , Linux List Kernel Mailing , Chris Murphy Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Jan 25, 2023 at 10:21 PM David Sterba 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 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=3D18 and kernel 6.2-rc5. > > > > =E2=9D=AF cat /boot/config-`uname -r` | grep LOCKDEP_CHAINS_BITS > > CONFIG_LOCKDEP_CHAINS_BITS=3D18 > > > > [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 r= eport > > [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? May Be set 99 right away? Or remove such a check condition? --=20 Best Regards, Mike Gavrilov.