Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751538AbdFICnk (ORCPT ); Thu, 8 Jun 2017 22:43:40 -0400 Received: from LGEAMRELO13.lge.com ([156.147.23.53]:34086 "EHLO lgeamrelo13.lge.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751479AbdFICnj (ORCPT ); Thu, 8 Jun 2017 22:43:39 -0400 X-Original-SENDERIP: 156.147.1.126 X-Original-MAILFROM: byungchul.park@lge.com X-Original-SENDERIP: 10.177.222.33 X-Original-MAILFROM: byungchul.park@lge.com Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2017 11:43:27 +0900 From: Byungchul Park To: Juri Lelli Cc: peterz@infradead.org, mingo@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, juri.lelli@gmail.com, rostedt@goodmis.org, kernel-team@lge.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] sched/deadline: Don't return invalid cpu in cpudl_maximum_cpu() Message-ID: <20170609024327.GG3623@X58A-UD3R> References: <1496388663-29067-1-git-send-email-byungchul.park@lge.com> <1496388663-29067-2-git-send-email-byungchul.park@lge.com> <20170606151225.xlhrnh2usajmlu52@e106622-lin> <20170606234224.GD3623@X58A-UD3R> <20170607001454.GE3623@X58A-UD3R> <20170608140243.omvx62ivewtofk75@e106622-lin> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20170608140243.omvx62ivewtofk75@e106622-lin> 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 Content-Length: 3865 Lines: 117 On Thu, Jun 08, 2017 at 03:02:43PM +0100, Juri Lelli wrote: > On 07/06/17 09:14, Byungchul Park wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 07, 2017 at 08:42:24AM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote: > > > On Tue, Jun 06, 2017 at 04:12:25PM +0100, Juri Lelli wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > On 02/06/17 16:31, Byungchul Park wrote: > > [...] > > > > > > > > > > > static inline int cpudl_maximum_cpu(struct cpudl *cp) > > > > > { > > > > > - return cp->elements[0].cpu; > > > > > + int cpu = cp->elements[0].cpu; > > > > > + return cp->elements[cpu].idx == IDX_INVALID ? -1 : cpu; > > > > > > > > Mmm, don't we get a WARN from cpumask_check() if we return -1 here? > > > > > > The function does not return -1 without my patch. > > > > > > Right? > > > > That's actually my point: with the change you are proposing we will > start returning -1 and it looks to me that the WARN will start to fire. Hi, I see what you talk about. You are talking about WARN in cpumask_check(). Sorry for missing your words. > What about the below instead (properly splitted in 2 patches I guess, > and I'm not sure at all the macro thing is pretty at all) ? > > --->8--- > kernel/sched/cpudeadline.c | 19 +++++++++++++------ > 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/kernel/sched/cpudeadline.c b/kernel/sched/cpudeadline.c > index fba235c7d026..32e3dcef2b81 100644 > --- a/kernel/sched/cpudeadline.c > +++ b/kernel/sched/cpudeadline.c > @@ -108,11 +108,17 @@ static void cpudl_heapify(struct cpudl *cp, int idx) > cpudl_heapify_down(cp, idx); > } > > -static inline int cpudl_maximum(struct cpudl *cp) > -{ > - return cp->elements[0].cpu; > +#define cpudl_maximum(field) \ > +static inline int cpudl_maximum_##field \ > +(struct cpudl *cp) \ > +{ \ > + return cp->elements[0].field; \ > } > > +cpudl_maximum(cpu); > +cpudl_maximum(dl); > +cpudl_maximum(idx); > + > /* > * cpudl_find - find the best (later-dl) CPU in the system > * @cp: the cpudl max-heap context > @@ -131,9 +137,10 @@ int cpudl_find(struct cpudl *cp, struct task_struct *p, > cpumask_and(later_mask, cp->free_cpus, &p->cpus_allowed)) { > best_cpu = cpumask_any(later_mask); > goto out; > - } else if (cpumask_test_cpu(cpudl_maximum(cp), &p->cpus_allowed) && > - dl_time_before(dl_se->deadline, cp->elements[0].dl)) { > - best_cpu = cpudl_maximum(cp); > + } else if (cpudl_maximum_idx(cp) != IDX_INVALID && > + cpumask_test_cpu(cpudl_maximum_cpu(cp), &p->cpus_allowed) && > + dl_time_before(dl_se->deadline, cpudl_maximum_dl(cp))) { > + best_cpu = cpudl_maximum_cpu(cp); This would also work and avoid unnecessary warning. I missed the check to avoid it. https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/3/23/175 was an original patch doing it. By the way, frankly speaking, I don't like accessing the cpudl instant several times without protection. I rather prefer the following.. But whatever. I like both. Thnaks, Byungchul ----->8----- diff --git a/kernel/sched/cpudeadline.c b/kernel/sched/cpudeadline.c index 9b314a9..1d369cf 100644 --- a/kernel/sched/cpudeadline.c +++ b/kernel/sched/cpudeadline.c @@ -137,11 +137,17 @@ int cpudl_find(struct cpudl *cp, struct task_struct *p, cpumask_and(later_mask, cp->free_cpus, &p->cpus_allowed)) { best_cpu = cpumask_any(later_mask); goto out; - } else if (cpumask_test_cpu(cpudl_maximum_cpu(cp), &p->cpus_allowed) && - dl_time_before(dl_se->deadline, cpudl_maximum_dl(cp))) { - best_cpu = cpudl_maximum_cpu(cp); - if (later_mask) - cpumask_set_cpu(best_cpu, later_mask); + } else { + int max_cpu = cpudl_maximum_cpu(cp); + u64 max_dl = cpudl_maximum_dl(cp); + + if (max_cpu != -1 && + cpumask_test_cpu(max_cpu, &p->cpus_allowed) && + dl_time_before(dl_se->deadline, max_dl)) { + best_cpu = max_cpu; + if (later_mask) + cpumask_set_cpu(best_cpu, later_mask); + } } out: