From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752604AbdCEDeP (ORCPT ); Sat, 4 Mar 2017 22:34:15 -0500 Received: from LGEAMRELO12.lge.com ([156.147.23.52]:60092 "EHLO lgeamrelo12.lge.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751372AbdCEDeO (ORCPT ); Sat, 4 Mar 2017 22:34:14 -0500 X-Original-SENDERIP: 156.147.1.127 X-Original-MAILFROM: byungchul.park@lge.com X-Original-SENDERIP: 10.177.222.33 X-Original-MAILFROM: byungchul.park@lge.com Date: Sun, 5 Mar 2017 12:33:50 +0900 From: Byungchul Park To: Peter Zijlstra Cc: mingo@kernel.org, tglx@linutronix.de, walken@google.com, boqun.feng@gmail.com, kirill@shutemov.name, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, npiggin@gmail.com, kernel-team@lge.com, Michal Hocko , Nikolay Borisov , Mel Gorman Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 06/13] lockdep: Implement crossrelease feature Message-ID: <20170305033350.GB11100@X58A-UD3R> References: <1484745459-2055-1-git-send-email-byungchul.park@lge.com> <1484745459-2055-7-git-send-email-byungchul.park@lge.com> <20170228134018.GK5680@worktop> <20170301054323.GE11663@X58A-UD3R> <20170301122843.GF6515@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20170302134031.GG6536@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20170303001737.GF28562@X58A-UD3R> <20170303081416.GT6515@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20170303091338.GH6536@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20170303091338.GH6536@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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. From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-pg0-f70.google.com (mail-pg0-f70.google.com [74.125.83.70]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 59A2C6B0038 for ; Sat, 4 Mar 2017 22:34:13 -0500 (EST) Received: by mail-pg0-f70.google.com with SMTP id 187so14046133pgb.3 for ; Sat, 04 Mar 2017 19:34:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from lgeamrelo12.lge.com (LGEAMRELO12.lge.com. [156.147.23.52]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id x26si8347217pge.30.2017.03.04.19.34.11 for ; Sat, 04 Mar 2017 19:34:12 -0800 (PST) Date: Sun, 5 Mar 2017 12:33:50 +0900 From: Byungchul Park Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 06/13] lockdep: Implement crossrelease feature Message-ID: <20170305033350.GB11100@X58A-UD3R> References: <1484745459-2055-1-git-send-email-byungchul.park@lge.com> <1484745459-2055-7-git-send-email-byungchul.park@lge.com> <20170228134018.GK5680@worktop> <20170301054323.GE11663@X58A-UD3R> <20170301122843.GF6515@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20170302134031.GG6536@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20170303001737.GF28562@X58A-UD3R> <20170303081416.GT6515@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20170303091338.GH6536@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20170303091338.GH6536@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Peter Zijlstra Cc: mingo@kernel.org, tglx@linutronix.de, walken@google.com, boqun.feng@gmail.com, kirill@shutemov.name, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, npiggin@gmail.com, kernel-team@lge.com, Michal Hocko , Nikolay Borisov , Mel Gorman 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. -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org