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: > > > That said; I'd be fairly interested in numbers on how many links this > > avoids, I'll go make a check_redundant() version of the above and put a > > proper counter in so I can see what it does for a regular boot etc.. > > 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 > OK, last email, I promise, then I'll go bury myself in futexes. find-mask forwards checks: 2999 find-mask backwards checks: 56134 Is with a clean kernel, which shows how many __bfs() calls we save by doing away with that RECLAIM state. OTOH: lock-classes: 1167 [max: 8191] direct dependencies: 7254 [max: 32768] indirect dependencies: 23763 all direct dependencies: 219093 Shows that the added reclaim class isn't entirely free either ;-) -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>
