Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Wed, 10 Apr 2019 11:31:38 +0100
From:   Qais Yousef <qais.yousef@arm.com>
To:     Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@arm.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mingo@redhat.com,
        peterz@infradead.org, Dietmar.Eggemann@arm.com,
        morten.rasmussen@arm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] sched/topology: build_sched_groups: Skip duplicate
 group rewrites
Message-ID: <20190410103137.hip56n52dvg6lxsq@e107158-lin.cambridge.arm.com>
References: <20190409173546.4747-1-valentin.schneider@arm.com>
 <20190409173546.4747-2-valentin.schneider@arm.com>
 <20190410092723.d4j4ctccogprtptg@e107158-lin.cambridge.arm.com>
 <ab929846-4f05-0ce9-c159-7f560a7edfca@arm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <ab929846-4f05-0ce9-c159-7f560a7edfca@arm.com>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20171215
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 04/10/19 11:17, Valentin Schneider wrote:
> On 10/04/2019 10:27, Qais Yousef wrote:
> [...]
> >> @@ -1066,9 +1067,14 @@ static struct sched_group *get_group(int cpu, struct sd_data *sdd)
> >>  	sg = *per_cpu_ptr(sdd->sg, cpu);
> >>  	sg->sgc = *per_cpu_ptr(sdd->sgc, cpu);
> >>  
> >> -	/* For claim_allocations: */
> >> -	atomic_inc(&sg->ref);
> >> -	atomic_inc(&sg->sgc->ref);
> >> +	/* Increase refcounts for claim_allocations: */
> >> +	already_visited = atomic_inc_return(&sg->ref) > 1;
> >> +	/* sgc visits should follow a similar trend as sg */
> >> +	WARN_ON(already_visited != (atomic_inc_return(&sg->sgc->ref) > 1));
> > 
> > NIT: I think it would be better to not have any side effect of calling
> > WARN_ON(). Ie: do the atomic_inc_return() outside the WARN_ON() condition.
> > Having two bool already_visited_sg and already_visited_sgc will make the code
> > more readable too.
> > 
> 
> I agree it's not the nicest reading flow there is. It's already gone in
> tip/sched/core but if needed I can resend with this extra separation.

It was just a nit from my side. So for me it's not worth a resend if it's
already accepted.

--
Qais Yousef