Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Benign unexpected system failure #12

Closed
huynle opened this issue Dec 22, 2021 · 9 comments
Closed

Benign unexpected system failure #12

huynle opened this issue Dec 22, 2021 · 9 comments

Comments

@huynle
Copy link
Contributor

huynle commented Dec 22, 2021

Is anyone else getting a message from the "Problem Reporting" app that shows a "system failure"?
Here is what i am getting, with a bug saying "BUG: MAX_LOCKDEP_CHAIN_HLOCKS too low!" does this have to do with a kernel config setting somewhere making the LOCKDEP values too low?

image

the details of the bug backtrace has the following snippet

BUG: MAX_LOCKDEP_CHAIN_HLOCKS too low!
turning off the locking correctness validator.
Please attach the output of /proc/lock_stat to the bug report
CPU: 0 PID: 53652 Comm: lua-language-se Not tainted 5.15.10-201.pixelbook.fc35.x86_64 #1
Hardware name: Google Eve/Eve, BIOS MrChromebox-4.14 08/06/2021
Call Trace:
@jmontleon
Copy link
Owner

Someone reported something similar before and it was due to multiple dmesg traces. One was due to an outdated MrChomebox firmware (yours is not), another from a wifi bug that was fixed in the upstream kernel since, and possibly a third I am familiar with, but I've been disabling the module in the kernel.

dmesg output would probably help.

@jmontleon
Copy link
Owner

#5 for additional reference.

@jmontleon
Copy link
Owner

That's not pixelbook specific. Something to do with btrfs (As mentioned elsewhere I tend to stick with xfs as a personal choice).

See:
https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-btrfs/msg111045.html

There are reports for this going back to at least 2019.

@jmontleon
Copy link
Owner

Recent BZ where someone hit it https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1996507

@jmontleon
Copy link
Owner

Here it's mentioned it's usually not a real bug; also not sure it's btrfs specific even though it showed up on the ntrfs list. See some traces mentioning xfs.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1784675#

@jmontleon
Copy link
Owner

https://yhbt.net/lore/all/CAJCQCtRrAoNtukFev8-zTHOcEYzTzxtp9ENRLkKPH4_mB882Yw@mail.gmail.com/t/

> >> I get the following call trace about 0.6s after dnf completes an
> >> update which I imagine deletes many files. I'll try to reproduce and
> >> get /proc/lock_stat
> >>
> >> [   95.674507] kernel: BUG: MAX_LOCKDEP_CHAIN_HLOCKS too low!
> > 
> > The message "BUG: MAX_LOCKDEP_CHAIN_HLOCKS too low" is related to
> > lockdep and not a btrfs problem, but it appears from time to time and as
> > Johannes said either increase the config variable, or ignore it.
> > 
> 
> But is not a bug if code triggers it? I.e I think it's a signal of
> misbehaving code. CC'ed PeterZ who can hopefully shed some light on this.

Maybe it's a bug, maybe it's a misconfigured build. Somebody (I don't
remember the name) asked for logs and how often it happened, that I
provided and nothing happened and the warning still shows up.

@huynle
Copy link
Contributor Author

huynle commented Dec 24, 2021

i can see that sine this is not a bug related to this project, i'll close it

@huynle huynle closed this as completed Dec 24, 2021
@huynle
Copy link
Contributor Author

huynle commented Dec 24, 2021

I really appreciate your work here, and its been extremely enjoyable using my pixelbook again!

@jmontleon
Copy link
Owner

Glad to hear you are enjoying it. I like the Pixelbook hardware a lot. It's a good light system for most stuff, and being able to run a standard Linux distribution makes it superb. Hopefully my git and copr repos are a short term requirement and everything makes it upstream in the right places.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants