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

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: <20170305033350.GB11100@X58A-UD3R>
Date:   Sun, 5 Mar 2017 12:33:50 +0900
From:   Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@....com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     mingo@...nel.org, tglx@...utronix.de, walken@...gle.com,
        boqun.feng@...il.com, kirill@...temov.name,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        iamjoonsoo.kim@....com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
        npiggin@...il.com, kernel-team@....com,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
        Nikolay Borisov <nborisov@...e.com>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 06/13] lockdep: Implement crossrelease feature

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.