Re: [PATCH v5 06/13] lockdep: Implement crossrelease feature

[Byungchul Park]

On Fri, Mar 03, 2017 at 10:13:38AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 03, 2017 at 09:14:16AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> 
> Two boots + a make defconfig, the first didn't have the redundant bit
> in, the second did (full diff below still includes the reclaim rework,
> because that was still in that kernel and I forgot to reset the tree).
> 
> 
>  lock-classes:                         1168       1169 [max: 8191]
>  direct dependencies:                  7688       5812 [max: 32768]
>  indirect dependencies:               25492      25937
>  all direct dependencies:            220113     217512
>  dependency chains:                    9005       9008 [max: 65536]
>  dependency chain hlocks:             34450      34366 [max: 327680]
>  in-hardirq chains:                      55         51
>  in-softirq chains:                     371        378
>  in-process chains:                    8579       8579
>  stack-trace entries:                108073      88474 [max: 524288]
>  combined max dependencies:       178738560  169094640
> 
>  max locking depth:                      15         15
>  max bfs queue depth:                   320        329
> 
>  cyclic checks:                        9123       9190
> 
>  redundant checks:                                5046
>  redundant links:                                 1828
> 
>  find-mask forwards checks:            2564       2599
>  find-mask backwards checks:          39521      39789
> 
> 
> So it saves nearly 2k links and a fair chunk of stack-trace entries, but

It's as we expect.

> as expected, makes no real difference on the indirect dependencies.

It looks that the indirect dependencies increased to me. This result is
also somewhat anticipated.

> At the same time, you see the max BFS depth increase, which is also

Yes. The depth should increase.

> expected, although it could easily be boot variance -- these numbers are
> not entirely stable between boots.
> 
> Could you run something similar? Or I'll take a look on your next spin
> of the patches.

I will check same thing you did and let you know the result at next spin.