On Thu, 17 Jun 2010, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Wed, 2010-06-16 at 17:29 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: > > On Wed, 2010-06-16 at 23:16 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > > > Also, google doesn't seem to index msg-ids, so I've no idea what you're > > > referring to. > > > > But marc.info does: > > > > http://marc.info/?i=4BCEAD7B0200005A0006513E@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > Right, so that was before Yong Zhang's patch, if it still happens we > need to again look at what is causing this. Again, blindly increasing > the limit is not a good option. Well, as I said, I'm testing with Yong Zhang's patch, and it seems to be doing the trick, so I am actually not pushing for my patch right now. But please stop characterizing this as "blindly increasing the limit", because that is not at all what I or others do. We have a debug build with tons of options turned on in which case we increased it to the minimum that worked for us, and we have a tracing build in which case we left it at the default. Also as I pointed out, in Sven's case it sounds like they may have had a build where they even wanted to decrease it. Your objection in the past was that it was another tunable that nobody understands, and I have more sympathy for that argument. My counterargument is that if we're all putting a version of this patch in our private builds, then it's a tad counterproductive. Let's leave things the way they are for now, unless this becomes a problem again. Thanks. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rt-users" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
