linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Increase lockdep MAX_LOCK

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <1188571012.6112.67.camel@twins>
Date:	Fri, 31 Aug 2007 16:36:52 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...deen.net>
Cc:	David Chinner <dgc@....com>,
	linux-kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	xfs-oss <xfs@....sgi.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Increase lockdep MAX_LOCK_DEPTH

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@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/