Re: [PATCH] lockdep: suggest the fix for "lockdep bfs error:-1" on print_bfs_bug

From: Waiman Long
Date: Mon Jul 29 2024 - 13:22:41 EST



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@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
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@xxxxxxxxxx>

You can also add our review-by tags in your v2 patch.

Cheers,
Longman


Reviewed-by: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@xxxxxxxxx>

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---