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 :-)
>
>> Do semaphores (the flush locks) contribute to the lock depth
>> counters?
>
> No, alas, we cannot handle semaphores in lockdep.
That explains why 40 was enough for me, I guess :)
-Eric
-
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/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
