On Fri, Aug 31, 2007 at 05:09:21PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Sat, 2007-09-01 at 01:05 +1000, David Chinner wrote: > > > > Trouble is, we'd like to have a sane upper bound on the amount of held > > > locks at any one time, obviously this is just wanting, because a lot of > > > lock chains also depend on the number of online cpus... > > > > Sure - this is an obvious case where it is valid to take >30 locks at > > once in a single thread. In fact, worst case here we are taking twice this > > number of locks - we actually take 2 per inode (ilock and flock) so a > > full 32 inode cluster free would take >60 locks in the middle of this > > function and we should be busting this depth couter limit all the > > time. > > I think this started because jeffpc couldn't boot without XFS busting > lockdep :-) It booted, but if I tried to build the kernel it would make lockdep blowup - not very useful when you have your own code you'd like lockdep to check :)
Josef 'Jeff' Sipek. -- I'm somewhere between geek and normal. - Linus Torvalds - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/