[lkml]   [2019]   [Jul]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: BUG: MAX_STACK_TRACE_ENTRIES too low! (2)
On 7/12/19 1:55 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 11:53:12AM -0700, Bart Van Assche wrote:
>> On 7/10/19 3:09 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>> One thing I mentioned when Thomas did the unwinder API changes was
>>> trying to move lockdep over to something like stackdepot.
>>> We can't directly use stackdepot as is, because it uses locks and memory
>>> allocation, but we could maybe add a lower level API to it and use that
>>> under the graph_lock() on static storage or something.
>>> Otherwise we'll have to (re)implement something like it.
>>> I've not looked at it in detail.
>> Hi Peter,
>> Is something like the untested patch below perhaps what you had in mind?
> Most excellent, yes! Now I suppose the $64000 question is if it actually
> reduces the amount of storage we use for stack traces..
> Seems to boot just fine.. :-)

Hi Peter,

On my setup after some time the space occupied by stack traces stabilizes
to the following:

# grep stack /proc/lockdep_stats
stack-trace entries: 169456 [max: 524288]
number of stack traces: 9073
number of stack hash chains: 6980

I think these numbers show that there are some but not too many hash
collisions (the code for the hash statistics was added after I e-mailed my


 \ /
  Last update: 2019-07-13 01:03    [W:0.045 / U:2.532 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site