* Peter Zijlstra <pet...@infradead.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 09:02:14AM -0500, Sasha Levin wrote:
> > On 12/19/2013 05:34 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > >On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 12:53:56AM -0500, Sasha Levin wrote:
> > >>Hi all,
> > >>
> > >>I think that my bloated kernel managed to create way too many entries in
> > >>the
> > >>dependency table. If that sounds right, I can send a patch to increase
> > >>those.
> > >>
> > >>Attached /proc/lock_stat as requested as well.
> > >
> > >/proc/lockdep_stats not lock_stat :-)
> > >
> > >Do you still happen to have that?
> >
> > Is the BUG message intentional ("Please attach the output of
> > /proc/lock_stat to the bug report")?
>
> It does? This happened when I wasn't looking..
>
> Commit 199e371f59d31 did that; and the Changelog fails to mention why or
> what. Ingo, Dave?
Simple oversight I think, should be fixed.
> [...]
>
> One might argue that the validator should be modified to allow lock
> classes to be reused. However, if you are tempted to make this
> argument, first review the code and think through the changes that
> would be required, keeping in mind that the lock classes to be
> removed are likely to be linked into the lock-dependency graph.
> This turns out to be harder to do than to say.
Yes, an append-only data structure was a conscious simplification I
decided on very early. (It also increases general robustness if your
data structure can never go away.)
Thanks,
Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
