Re: [PATCH] Increase lockdep MAX_LOCK_DEPTH

2007-08-31 Thread Josef Sipek
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 a

Re: [PATCH] Increase lockdep MAX_LOCK_DEPTH

2007-08-31 Thread David Chinner
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 a

Re: [PATCH] Increase lockdep MAX_LOCK_DEPTH

2007-08-31 Thread Eric Sandeen
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... >> Su

Re: [PATCH] Increase lockdep MAX_LOCK_DEPTH

2007-08-31 Thread Peter Zijlstra
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

Re: [PATCH] Increase lockdep MAX_LOCK_DEPTH

2007-08-31 Thread David Chinner
On Fri, Aug 31, 2007 at 04:33:51PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Fri, 2007-08-31 at 23:50 +1000, David Chinner wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 31, 2007 at 08:39:49AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > On Thu, 2007-08-30 at 23:43 -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote: > > > > The xfs filesystem can exceed the curren

Re: [PATCH] Increase lockdep MAX_LOCK_DEPTH

2007-08-31 Thread Peter Zijlstra
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 > lock

Re: [PATCH] Increase lockdep MAX_LOCK_DEPTH

2007-08-31 Thread Eric Sandeen
David Chinner wrote: > On Fri, Aug 31, 2007 at 08:39:49AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: >> On Thu, 2007-08-30 at 23:43 -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote: >>> The xfs filesystem can exceed the current lockdep >>> MAX_LOCK_DEPTH, because when deleting an entire cluster of inodes, >>> they all get locked in x

Re: [PATCH] Increase lockdep MAX_LOCK_DEPTH

2007-08-31 Thread Peter Zijlstra
On Fri, 2007-08-31 at 23:50 +1000, David Chinner wrote: > On Fri, Aug 31, 2007 at 08:39:49AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > On Thu, 2007-08-30 at 23:43 -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote: > > > The xfs filesystem can exceed the current lockdep > > > MAX_LOCK_DEPTH, because when deleting an entire cluster

Re: [PATCH] Increase lockdep MAX_LOCK_DEPTH

2007-08-31 Thread David Chinner
On Fri, Aug 31, 2007 at 08:39:49AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Thu, 2007-08-30 at 23:43 -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote: > > The xfs filesystem can exceed the current lockdep > > MAX_LOCK_DEPTH, because when deleting an entire cluster of inodes, > > they all get locked in xfs_ifree_cluster(). The

Re: [PATCH] Increase lockdep MAX_LOCK_DEPTH

2007-08-31 Thread Peter Zijlstra
On Thu, 2007-08-30 at 23:43 -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote: > The xfs filesystem can exceed the current lockdep > MAX_LOCK_DEPTH, because when deleting an entire cluster of inodes, > they all get locked in xfs_ifree_cluster(). The normal cluster > size is 8192 bytes, and with the default (and minimum)