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@infradead.org>
Signed-off-by: Yuyang Du <duyuyang@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: bvanassche@acm.org
Cc: frederic@kernel.org
Cc: ming.lei@redhat.com
Cc: will.deacon@arm.com
Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20190506081939.74287-21-duyuyang@gmail.com
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
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
return ret;
}
+#endif
#ifdef CONFIG_TRACE_IRQFLAGS
}
}
+#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;