kernel/locking/lockdep.c | 3 +++ 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
When lockdep fails while performing the Breadth-first-search operation
due to lack of memory, hint that increasing the value of the configuration
switch LOCKDEP_CIRCULAR_QUEUE_BITS should fix the warning.
Preface the scary bactrace with the suggestion:
[ 163.849242] Increase LOCKDEP_CIRCULAR_QUEUE_BITS to avoid this warning:
[ 163.849248] ------------[ cut here ]------------
[ 163.849250] lockdep bfs error:-1
[ 163.849263] WARNING: CPU: 24 PID: 2454 at kernel/locking/lockdep.c:2091 print_bfs_bug+0x27/0x40
...
Signed-off-by: Luis Claudio R. Goncalves <lgoncalv@redhat.com>
---
kernel/locking/lockdep.c | 3 +++
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
diff --git a/kernel/locking/lockdep.c b/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
index 58c88220a478a..1cf6d9fdddc9c 100644
--- a/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
+++ b/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
@@ -2067,6 +2067,9 @@ static noinline void print_bfs_bug(int ret)
/*
* Breadth-first-search failed, graph got corrupted?
*/
+ if (ret == BFS_EQUEUEFULL)
+ pr_warn("Increase LOCKDEP_CIRCULAR_QUEUE_BITS to avoid this warning:\n");
+
WARN(1, "lockdep bfs error:%d\n", ret);
}
--
2.45.2
On Thu, Jul 25, 2024 at 03:45:57PM -0300, Luis Claudio R. Goncalves wrote: > When lockdep fails while performing the Breadth-first-search operation > due to lack of memory, hint that increasing the value of the configuration > switch LOCKDEP_CIRCULAR_QUEUE_BITS should fix the warning. > > Preface the scary bactrace with the suggestion: > > [ 163.849242] Increase LOCKDEP_CIRCULAR_QUEUE_BITS to avoid this warning: > [ 163.849248] ------------[ cut here ]------------ > [ 163.849250] lockdep bfs error:-1 > [ 163.849263] WARNING: CPU: 24 PID: 2454 at kernel/locking/lockdep.c:2091 print_bfs_bug+0x27/0x40 > ... > > Signed-off-by: Luis Claudio R. Goncalves <lgoncalv@redhat.com> > --- > kernel/locking/lockdep.c | 3 +++ > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/kernel/locking/lockdep.c b/kernel/locking/lockdep.c > index 58c88220a478a..1cf6d9fdddc9c 100644 > --- a/kernel/locking/lockdep.c > +++ b/kernel/locking/lockdep.c > @@ -2067,6 +2067,9 @@ static noinline void print_bfs_bug(int ret) > /* > * Breadth-first-search failed, graph got corrupted? > */ > + if (ret == BFS_EQUEUEFULL) This line has an extra space after "ret", but otherwise it looks fine. Reviewed-by: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com> Regards, Boqun > + pr_warn("Increase LOCKDEP_CIRCULAR_QUEUE_BITS to avoid this warning:\n"); > + > WARN(1, "lockdep bfs error:%d\n", ret); > } > > -- > 2.45.2 >
On Fri, Jul 26, 2024 at 02:24:28PM -0700, Boqun Feng wrote: > On Thu, Jul 25, 2024 at 03:45:57PM -0300, Luis Claudio R. Goncalves wrote: > > When lockdep fails while performing the Breadth-first-search operation > > due to lack of memory, hint that increasing the value of the configuration > > switch LOCKDEP_CIRCULAR_QUEUE_BITS should fix the warning. > > > > Preface the scary bactrace with the suggestion: > > > > [ 163.849242] Increase LOCKDEP_CIRCULAR_QUEUE_BITS to avoid this warning: > > [ 163.849248] ------------[ cut here ]------------ > > [ 163.849250] lockdep bfs error:-1 > > [ 163.849263] WARNING: CPU: 24 PID: 2454 at kernel/locking/lockdep.c:2091 print_bfs_bug+0x27/0x40 > > ... > > > > Signed-off-by: Luis Claudio R. Goncalves <lgoncalv@redhat.com> > > --- > > kernel/locking/lockdep.c | 3 +++ > > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+) > > > > diff --git a/kernel/locking/lockdep.c b/kernel/locking/lockdep.c > > index 58c88220a478a..1cf6d9fdddc9c 100644 > > --- a/kernel/locking/lockdep.c > > +++ b/kernel/locking/lockdep.c > > @@ -2067,6 +2067,9 @@ static noinline void print_bfs_bug(int ret) > > /* > > * Breadth-first-search failed, graph got corrupted? > > */ > > + if (ret == BFS_EQUEUEFULL) > > This line has an extra space after "ret", but otherwise it looks fine. Should I send a v2 of the patch with the extra whitespace removed? Luis > Reviewed-by: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com> > > Regards, > Boqun > > > + pr_warn("Increase LOCKDEP_CIRCULAR_QUEUE_BITS to avoid this warning:\n"); > > + > > WARN(1, "lockdep bfs error:%d\n", ret); > > } > > > > -- > > 2.45.2 > > > ---end quoted text---
On 7/29/24 12:53, Luis Claudio R. Goncalves wrote: > On Fri, Jul 26, 2024 at 02:24:28PM -0700, Boqun Feng wrote: >> On Thu, Jul 25, 2024 at 03:45:57PM -0300, Luis Claudio R. Goncalves wrote: >>> When lockdep fails while performing the Breadth-first-search operation >>> due to lack of memory, hint that increasing the value of the configuration >>> switch LOCKDEP_CIRCULAR_QUEUE_BITS should fix the warning. >>> >>> Preface the scary bactrace with the suggestion: >>> >>> [ 163.849242] Increase LOCKDEP_CIRCULAR_QUEUE_BITS to avoid this warning: >>> [ 163.849248] ------------[ cut here ]------------ >>> [ 163.849250] lockdep bfs error:-1 >>> [ 163.849263] WARNING: CPU: 24 PID: 2454 at kernel/locking/lockdep.c:2091 print_bfs_bug+0x27/0x40 >>> ... >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Luis Claudio R. Goncalves <lgoncalv@redhat.com> >>> --- >>> kernel/locking/lockdep.c | 3 +++ >>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+) >>> >>> diff --git a/kernel/locking/lockdep.c b/kernel/locking/lockdep.c >>> index 58c88220a478a..1cf6d9fdddc9c 100644 >>> --- a/kernel/locking/lockdep.c >>> +++ b/kernel/locking/lockdep.c >>> @@ -2067,6 +2067,9 @@ static noinline void print_bfs_bug(int ret) >>> /* >>> * Breadth-first-search failed, graph got corrupted? >>> */ >>> + if (ret == BFS_EQUEUEFULL) >> This line has an extra space after "ret", but otherwise it looks fine. > Should I send a v2 of the patch with the extra whitespace removed? > > Luis Yes, you should. Other than the extra space, the patch looks good to me too. Reviewed-by: Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com> You can also add our review-by tags in your v2 patch. Cheers, Longman > >> Reviewed-by: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com> >> >> Regards, >> Boqun >> >>> + pr_warn("Increase LOCKDEP_CIRCULAR_QUEUE_BITS to avoid this warning:\n"); >>> + >>> WARN(1, "lockdep bfs error:%d\n", ret); >>> } >>> >>> -- >>> 2.45.2 >>> > ---end quoted text--- >
© 2016 - 2024 Red Hat, Inc.