Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S1752133AbdF3Olx (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Fri, 30 Jun 2017 10:41:53 -0400
Received: from mail-vk0-f65.google.com ([209.85.213.65]:35611 "EHLO
        mail-vk0-f65.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1751675AbdF3Olv (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Fri, 30 Jun 2017 10:41:51 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <1498831200.6130.13.camel@redhat.com>
References: <20170629184128.GA5271@embeddedgus> <tip-72298e5c92c50edd8cb7cfda4519483ce65fa166@git.kernel.org>
 <1498831200.6130.13.camel@redhat.com>
From: Frans Klaver <fransklaver@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2017 16:41:50 +0200
Message-ID: <CAH6sp9PbPt72HskuV+bLBz_sE9MS6EiXb0_n7K-JvRVrTe4J0g@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [tip:sched/core] sched/cputime: Refactor the cputime_adjust() code
To: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>, hpa@zytor.com,
        Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>,
        torvalds@linux-foundation.org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        wanpeng.li@hotmail.com,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <garsilva@embeddedor.com>, sgruszka@redhat.com,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        linux-tip-commits@vger.kernel.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1175
Lines: 39

On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 4:00 PM, Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 2017-06-30 at 06:10 -0700, tip-bot for Gustavo A. R. Silva
> wrote:
>
>> +++ b/kernel/sched/cputime.c
>> @@ -615,19 +615,13 @@ static void cputime_adjust(struct task_cputime
>> *curr,
>>        * userspace. Once a task gets some ticks, the monotonicy
>> code at
>>        * 'update' will ensure things converge to the observed
>> ratio.
>>        */
>> -     if (stime == 0) {
>> -             utime = rtime;
>> -             goto update;
>> +     if (stime != 0) {
>> +             if (utime == 0)
>> +                     stime = rtime;
>> +             else
>> +                     stime = scale_stime(stime, rtime, stime +
>> utime);
>>       }
>>
>> -     if (utime == 0) {
>> -             stime = rtime;
>> -             goto update;
>> -     }
>> -
>> -     stime = scale_stime(stime, rtime, stime + utime);
>> -
>> -update:
>
> Wait, what?
>
> This get rid of the utime = rtime assignment, when
> stime == 0.  That could be a correctness issue.

The first time utime is used after that assignment, it is overwritten
with rtime - stime. The utime = rtime assignment is then pointless.