* BUG: MAX_LOCKDEP_CHAIN_HLOCKS too low
@ 2022-03-27 1:31 Ammar Faizi
2022-03-28 8:10 ` Johannes Thumshirn
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Ammar Faizi @ 2022-03-27 1:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Chris Mason, David Sterba, Josef Bacik
Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List, Linux Btrfs Mailing List
Hello btrfs maintainers,
I got the following bug in Linux 5.17.0 stable. I don't have the
reproducer for this. I will send any update if I find something
relevant. If anyone has any suggestion on how to debug this further,
or wants me to test a patch after it gets a reliable reproducer,
or something, please let me know. I will try it on my machine.
If you need me to send something to investigate this, please let
me know.
Here is the dmesg output:
<7>[ 2303.271381][T10970] BUG: MAX_LOCKDEP_CHAIN_HLOCKS too low!
<7>[ 2303.271386][T10970] turning off the locking correctness validator.
<4>[ 2303.271388][T10970] CPU: 6 PID: 10970 Comm: ThreadPoolForeg Tainted: G W 5.17.0-superb-owl-00001-gf443e374ae13 #4 2e0b653b4e6257f7299ba52601cab31b4cf18438
<4>[ 2303.271391][T10970] Hardware name: HP HP Laptop 14s-dq2xxx/87FD, BIOS F.15 09/15/2021
<4>[ 2303.271392][T10970] Call Trace:
<4>[ 2303.271394][T10970] <TASK>
<4>[ 2303.271397][T10970] dump_stack_lvl (lib/dump_stack.c:107)
<4>[ 2303.271401][T10970] validate_chain (kernel/locking/lockdep.c:? kernel/locking/lockdep.c:3748 kernel/locking/lockdep.c:3769)
<4>[ 2303.271403][T10970] ? check_path (kernel/locking/lockdep.c:1977)
<4>[ 2303.271405][T10970] ? __bfs (kernel/locking/lockdep.c:1758)
<4>[ 2303.271407][T10970] ? check_path (kernel/locking/lockdep.c:1803 kernel/locking/lockdep.c:2104)
<4>[ 2303.271408][T10970] ? check_noncircular (kernel/locking/lockdep.c:2131)
<4>[ 2303.271409][T10970] ? __bfs (kernel/locking/lockdep.c:1758)
<4>[ 2303.271411][T10970] ? lockdep_unlock (kernel/locking/lockdep.c:126)
<4>[ 2303.271413][T10970] ? validate_chain (kernel/locking/lockdep.c:? kernel/locking/lockdep.c:3805)
<4>[ 2303.271415][T10970] ? validate_chain (kernel/locking/lockdep.c:? kernel/locking/lockdep.c:3805)
<4>[ 2303.271416][T10970] ? validate_chain (kernel/locking/lockdep.c:? kernel/locking/lockdep.c:3805)
<4>[ 2303.271417][T10970] __lock_acquire (kernel/locking/lockdep.c:5027)
<4>[ 2303.271420][T10970] lock_acquire (kernel/locking/lockdep.c:5639)
<4>[ 2303.271422][T10970] ? btrfs_reserve_extent (fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c:? fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c:4527) btrfs
<4>[ 2303.271444][T10970] ? btrfs_reserve_extent (fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c:? fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c:4527) btrfs
<4>[ 2303.271457][T10970] btrfs_get_alloc_profile (./include/linux/seqlock.h:103 ./include/linux/seqlock.h:840 fs/btrfs/block-group.c:105) btrfs
<4>[ 2303.271470][T10970] ? btrfs_reserve_extent (fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c:? fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c:4527) btrfs
<4>[ 2303.271483][T10970] btrfs_reserve_extent (fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c:? fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c:4527) btrfs
<4>[ 2303.271498][T10970] btrfs_alloc_tree_block (fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c:4942) btrfs
<4>[ 2303.271511][T10970] ? lock_is_held_type (kernel/locking/lockdep.c:? kernel/locking/lockdep.c:5683)
<4>[ 2303.271515][T10970] ? register_lock_class (kernel/locking/lockdep.c:1258)
<4>[ 2303.271517][T10970] __btrfs_cow_block (fs/btrfs/ctree.c:416) btrfs
<4>[ 2303.271531][T10970] btrfs_cow_block (fs/btrfs/ctree.c:571) btrfs
<4>[ 2303.271545][T10970] push_leaf_right (fs/btrfs/ctree.c:2994) btrfs
<4>[ 2303.271558][T10970] btrfs_del_items (fs/btrfs/inode.c:10680) btrfs
<4>[ 2303.271572][T10970] __btrfs_update_delayed_inode (fs/btrfs/ctree.h:2926 ./include/asm-generic/bitops/instrumented-atomic.h:86 fs/btrfs/delayed-inode.c:920 fs/btrfs/delayed-inode.c:987) btrfs
<4>[ 2303.271586][T10970] btrfs_commit_inode_delayed_inode (fs/btrfs/delayed-inode.c:1193) btrfs
<4>[ 2303.271599][T10970] btrfs_evict_inode (fs/btrfs/inode.c:5234) btrfs
<4>[ 2303.271612][T10970] ? bit_waitqueue (kernel/sched/wait_bit.c:22)
<4>[ 2303.271615][T10970] evict (fs/inode.c:?)
<4>[ 2303.271617][T10970] __dentry_kill (fs/dcache.c:?)
<4>[ 2303.271618][T10970] dentry_kill (fs/dcache.c:755)
<4>[ 2303.271620][T10970] dput (fs/dcache.c:913)
<4>[ 2303.271622][T10970] do_renameat2 (fs/namei.c:4832)
<4>[ 2303.271626][T10970] __x64_sys_rename (fs/namei.c:4874 fs/namei.c:4872 fs/namei.c:4872)
<4>[ 2303.271628][T10970] do_syscall_64 (arch/x86/entry/common.c:?)
<4>[ 2303.271630][T10970] entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe (??:?)
<4>[ 2303.271632][T10970] RIP: 0033:0x7fb89f7aacbb
<4>[ 2303.271634][T10970] Code: e8 ea 35 0b 00 85 c0 0f 95 c0 0f b6 c0 f7 d8 5d c3 66 0f 1f 44 00 00 b8 ff ff ff ff 5d c3 90 f3 0f 1e fa b8 52 00 00 00 0f 05 <48> 3d 00 f0 ff ff 77 05 c3 0f 1f 40 00 48 8b 15 41 71 1b 00 f7 d8
All code
========
0: e8 ea 35 0b 00 call 0xb35ef
5: 85 c0 test %eax,%eax
7: 0f 95 c0 setne %al
a: 0f b6 c0 movzbl %al,%eax
d: f7 d8 neg %eax
f: 5d pop %rbp
10: c3 ret
11: 66 0f 1f 44 00 00 nopw 0x0(%rax,%rax,1)
17: b8 ff ff ff ff mov $0xffffffff,%eax
1c: 5d pop %rbp
1d: c3 ret
1e: 90 nop
1f: f3 0f 1e fa endbr64
23: b8 52 00 00 00 mov $0x52,%eax
28: 0f 05 syscall
2a:* 48 3d 00 f0 ff ff cmp $0xfffffffffffff000,%rax <-- trapping instruction
30: 77 05 ja 0x37
32: c3 ret
33: 0f 1f 40 00 nopl 0x0(%rax)
37: 48 8b 15 41 71 1b 00 mov 0x1b7141(%rip),%rdx # 0x1b717f
3e: f7 d8 neg %eax
Code starting with the faulting instruction
===========================================
0: 48 3d 00 f0 ff ff cmp $0xfffffffffffff000,%rax
6: 77 05 ja 0xd
8: c3 ret
9: 0f 1f 40 00 nopl 0x0(%rax)
d: 48 8b 15 41 71 1b 00 mov 0x1b7141(%rip),%rdx # 0x1b7155
14: f7 d8 neg %eax
<4>[ 2303.271636][T10970] RSP: 002b:00007fb899a32e98 EFLAGS: 00000282 ORIG_RAX: 0000000000000052
<4>[ 2303.271638][T10970] RAX: ffffffffffffffda RBX: 00007fb899a32ef0 RCX: 00007fb89f7aacbb
<4>[ 2303.271639][T10970] RDX: 0000000000000001 RSI: 0000177c02926be0 RDI: 0000177c01713380
<4>[ 2303.271639][T10970] RBP: 00007fb899a32f70 R08: 000005e769162932 R09: 00007ffe45363080
<4>[ 2303.271640][T10970] R10: 0000000000000010 R11: 0000000000000282 R12: 0000177c02926be0
<4>[ 2303.271641][T10970] R13: 00007fb899a32ec0 R14: 0000177c01713380 R15: 000055b6d6ae3c40
<4>[ 2303.271644][T10970] </TASK>
--
Ammar Faizi
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: BUG: MAX_LOCKDEP_CHAIN_HLOCKS too low
2022-03-27 1:31 BUG: MAX_LOCKDEP_CHAIN_HLOCKS too low Ammar Faizi
@ 2022-03-28 8:10 ` Johannes Thumshirn
2022-04-03 23:06 ` Ammar Faizi
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Johannes Thumshirn @ 2022-03-28 8:10 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Ammar Faizi, Chris Mason, David Sterba, Josef Bacik
Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List, Linux Btrfs Mailing List
On 27/03/2022 03:31, Ammar Faizi wrote:
>
> Hello btrfs maintainers,
>
> I got the following bug in Linux 5.17.0 stable. I don't have the
> reproducer for this. I will send any update if I find something
> relevant. If anyone has any suggestion on how to debug this further,
> or wants me to test a patch after it gets a reliable reproducer,
> or something, please let me know. I will try it on my machine.
>
> If you need me to send something to investigate this, please let
> me know.
>
This can be solved by increasing CONFIG_LOCKDEP_CHAINS_BITS.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: BUG: MAX_LOCKDEP_CHAIN_HLOCKS too low
2022-03-28 8:10 ` Johannes Thumshirn
@ 2022-04-03 23:06 ` Ammar Faizi
0 siblings, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Ammar Faizi @ 2022-04-03 23:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Johannes Thumshirn, Chris Mason, David Sterba, Josef Bacik
Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List, Linux Btrfs Mailing List
On 3/28/22 3:10 PM, Johannes Thumshirn wrote:
> On 27/03/2022 03:31, Ammar Faizi wrote:
>>
>> Hello btrfs maintainers,
>>
>> I got the following bug in Linux 5.17.0 stable. I don't have the
>> reproducer for this. I will send any update if I find something
>> relevant. If anyone has any suggestion on how to debug this further,
>> or wants me to test a patch after it gets a reliable reproducer,
>> or something, please let me know. I will try it on my machine.
>>
>> If you need me to send something to investigate this, please let
>> me know.
>>
>
> This can be solved by increasing CONFIG_LOCKDEP_CHAINS_BITS.
TIL, got it, thanks.
--
Ammar Faizi
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2022-04-03 23:07 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2022-03-27 1:31 BUG: MAX_LOCKDEP_CHAIN_HLOCKS too low Ammar Faizi
2022-03-28 8:10 ` Johannes Thumshirn
2022-04-03 23:06 ` Ammar Faizi
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).