Re: [PATCH] Increase lockdep MAX_LOCK_DEPTH
- From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2007 16:36:52 +0200
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.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
- References:
- [PATCH] Increase lockdep MAX_LOCK_DEPTH
- From: Eric Sandeen
- Re: [PATCH] Increase lockdep MAX_LOCK_DEPTH
- From: Peter Zijlstra
- Re: [PATCH] Increase lockdep MAX_LOCK_DEPTH
- From: David Chinner
- Re: [PATCH] Increase lockdep MAX_LOCK_DEPTH
- From: Eric Sandeen
- [PATCH] Increase lockdep MAX_LOCK_DEPTH
- Prev by Date: Re: [PATCH 2.6.23] ibmebus: Prevent bus_id collisions
- Next by Date: Re: [PATCH 5/5] Net: ath5k, kconfig changes
- Previous by thread: Re: [PATCH] Increase lockdep MAX_LOCK_DEPTH
- Next by thread: Re: [PATCH] Increase lockdep MAX_LOCK_DEPTH
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|
