| To: | Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] Increase lockdep MAX_LOCK_DEPTH |
| From: | Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Fri, 31 Aug 2007 16:36:52 +0200 |
| Cc: | David Chinner <dgc@xxxxxxx>, linux-kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, xfs-oss <xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxx> |
| In-reply-to: | <46D826BA.1060705@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
| References: | <46D79C62.1010304@xxxxxxxxxxx> <1188542389.6112.44.camel@twins> <20070831135042.GD422459@xxxxxxx> <46D826BA.1060705@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Sender: | xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
On Fri, 2007-08-31 at 09:33 -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote: > Peter, unless there is some other reason to do so, changing xfs > performance behavior simply to satisfy lockdep limitations* doesn't seem > like the best plan. > > I suppose one slightly flakey option would be for xfs to see whether > lockdep is enabled and adjust cluster size based on MAX_LOCK_DEPTH... on > the argument that lockdep is likely used in debugging kernels where > sheer performance is less important... but, that sounds pretty flakey to me. Agreed, that sucks too :-/ I was hoping there would be a 'nice' solution, a well, again, reality ruins it. |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: [PATCH] Increase lockdep MAX_LOCK_DEPTH, Peter Zijlstra |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: XFS Fails Quality Assurance Tests on ARM, Eric Sandeen |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [PATCH] Increase lockdep MAX_LOCK_DEPTH, Eric Sandeen |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [PATCH] Increase lockdep MAX_LOCK_DEPTH, Peter Zijlstra |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |