[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20190506081939.74287-21-duyuyang@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 6 May 2019 16:19:36 +0800
From: Yuyang Du <duyuyang@...il.com>
To: peterz@...radead.org, will.deacon@....com, mingo@...nel.org
Cc: bvanassche@....org, ming.lei@...hat.com, frederic@...nel.org,
tglx@...utronix.de, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Yuyang Du <duyuyang@...il.com>
Subject: [PATCH v2 20/23] locking/lockdep: Check redundant dependency only when CONFIG_LOCKDEP_SMALL
As Peter has put it all sound and complete for the cause, I simply quote:
"It (check_redundant) was added for cross-release (which has since been
reverted) which would generate a lot of redundant links (IIRC) but
having it makes the reports more convoluted -- basically, if we had an
A-B-C relation, then A-C will not be added to the graph because it is
already covered. This then means any report will include B, even though
a shorter cycle might have been possible."
This would increase the number of direct dependencies. For a simple workload
(make clean; reboot; make vmlinux -j8), the data looks like this:
CONFIG_LOCKDEP_SMALL: direct dependencies: 6926
!CONFIG_LOCKDEP_SMALL: direct dependencies: 9052 (+30.7%)
Suggested-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@...radead.org>
Signed-off-by: Yuyang Du <duyuyang@...il.com>
---
kernel/locking/lockdep.c | 4 ++++
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
diff --git a/kernel/locking/lockdep.c b/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
index 2502ea4..9d2728c 100644
--- a/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
+++ b/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
@@ -1734,6 +1734,7 @@ unsigned long lockdep_count_backward_deps(struct lock_class *class)
return ret;
}
+#ifdef CONFIG_LOCKDEP_SMALL
/*
* Check that the dependency graph starting at <src> can lead to
* <target> or not. If it can, <src> -> <target> dependency is already
@@ -1763,6 +1764,7 @@ unsigned long lockdep_count_backward_deps(struct lock_class *class)
return ret;
}
+#endif
#ifdef CONFIG_TRACE_IRQFLAGS
@@ -2423,12 +2425,14 @@ static inline void inc_chains(void)
}
}
+#ifdef CONFIG_LOCKDEP_SMALL
/*
* Is the <prev> -> <next> link redundant?
*/
ret = check_redundant(prev, next);
if (ret != 1)
return ret;
+#endif
if (!trace->nr_entries && !save_trace(trace))
return 0;
--
1.8.3.1
Powered by blists - more mailing lists