Re: next-20090211: BUG: MAX_LOCKDEP_SUBCLASSES too low!

[Alexander Beregalov]

2009/2/11 Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> On Wed, 2009-02-11 at 13:24 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> On Wed, 2009-02-11 at 13:23 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> > On Wed, 2009-02-11 at 15:14 +0300, Alexander Beregalov wrote:
>> > > Hi
>> > >
>> > > Full dmesg is attached.
>> > >
>> > > Lock dependency validator: Copyright (c) 2006 Red Hat, Inc., Ingo Molnar
>> > > .... MAX_LOCKDEP_SUBCLASSES:  8
>> > > .... MAX_LOCK_DEPTH:          48
>> > > .... MAX_LOCKDEP_KEYS:        8191
>> > > .... CLASSHASH_SIZE:          4096
>> > > .... MAX_LOCKDEP_ENTRIES:     8192
>> > > .... MAX_LOCKDEP_CHAINS:      16384
>> > > .... CHAINHASH_SIZE:          8192
>> > >  memory used by lock dependency info: 4351 kB
>> > >  per task-struct memory footprint: 2688 bytes
>> > > <..>
>> > > BUG: MAX_LOCKDEP_SUBCLASSES too low!
>> > > turning off the locking correctness validator.
>> >
>> > Is this an allyesconfig or something other massive bloated?
>>
>> Sorry, not playing attention, its SUB classes.. let me look at that,
>> that smells like a rotten annotation.
>
> Could you run with the below patch, so that we can see where this
> happens?

BUG: MAX_LOCKDEP_SUBCLASSES too low!
turning off the locking correctness validator.
Pid: 2105, comm: btrfs-endio-wri Not tainted 2.6.29-rc4-next-20090211-dirty #2
Call Trace:
 [<ffffffff8026cbf9>] __lock_acquire+0x6b9/0x12c0
 [<ffffffff8026d891>] lock_acquire+0x91/0xc0
 [<ffffffff80447324>] ? btrfs_tree_lock+0xc4/0x160
 [<ffffffff8062eb36>] _spin_lock_nested+0x46/0x80
 [<ffffffff80447324>] ? btrfs_tree_lock+0xc4/0x160
 [<ffffffff80447324>] btrfs_tree_lock+0xc4/0x160
 [<ffffffff804471a0>] ? btrfs_wake_function+0x0/0x10
 [<ffffffff8040bce6>] btrfs_init_new_buffer+0xa6/0x150
 [<ffffffff80412fa1>] btrfs_alloc_free_block+0x81/0x90
 [<ffffffff80402a16>] __btrfs_cow_block+0x7a6/0xb70
 [<ffffffff804034e2>] btrfs_cow_block+0x112/0x2d0
 [<ffffffff804072f3>] btrfs_search_slot+0x223/0xb00
 [<ffffffff80235a99>] ? sub_preempt_count+0xa9/0xf0
 [<ffffffff804178d1>] btrfs_lookup_csum+0x61/0x150
 [<ffffffff8026c2ed>] ? trace_hardirqs_on+0xd/0x10
 [<ffffffff80418356>] btrfs_csum_file_blocks+0xc6/0x7d0
 [<ffffffff802c2315>] ? kmem_cache_free+0xb5/0x110
 [<ffffffff802c2315>] ? kmem_cache_free+0xb5/0x110
 [<ffffffff8026c2ed>] ? trace_hardirqs_on+0xd/0x10
 [<ffffffff80437c76>] ? free_extent_state+0x46/0x70
 [<ffffffff80439462>] ? clear_extent_bit+0xe2/0x2e0
 [<ffffffff8042166a>] add_pending_csums+0x4a/0x70
 [<ffffffff80422ac5>] btrfs_finish_ordered_io+0x115/0x1e0
 [<ffffffff80422ba0>] btrfs_writepage_end_io_hook+0x10/0x20
 [<ffffffff8043abf4>] end_bio_extent_writepage+0x104/0x1e0
 [<ffffffff8026c282>] ? trace_hardirqs_on_caller+0x182/0x1e0
 [<ffffffff802ef0cc>] bio_endio+0x1c/0x40
 [<ffffffff8041b02b>] end_workqueue_fn+0xeb/0x120
 [<ffffffff804446ea>] worker_loop+0x7a/0x1b0
 [<ffffffff80444670>] ? worker_loop+0x0/0x1b0
 [<ffffffff80259126>] kthread+0x56/0x90
 [<ffffffff8020cc5a>] child_rip+0xa/0x20
 [<ffffffff80235969>] ? finish_task_switch+0x89/0x110
 [<ffffffff8062f546>] ? _spin_unlock_irq+0x36/0x60
 [<ffffffff8020c640>] ? restore_args+0x0/0x30
 [<ffffffff802590d0>] ? kthread+0x0/0x90
 [<ffffffff8020cc50>] ? child_rip+0x0/0x20
--
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/