Received: by 2002:a25:7ec1:0:0:0:0:0 with SMTP id z184csp5645098ybc; Wed, 27 Nov 2019 07:17:17 -0800 (PST) X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzBGj7YNOlAeejKtDpAkBOHf1iSK+nJ4mXqtsiOlWEyURMW1ngT6scBBM0nV/rTMd2A47Od X-Received: by 2002:adf:f308:: with SMTP id i8mr42489433wro.319.1574867836891; Wed, 27 Nov 2019 07:17:16 -0800 (PST) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1574867836; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=W+U8DDn/2cwib6Azt0qS01gFffg+re5EZmQk1jmvJHPUq5Wcdhse5ZwF0JZl7CrY3Q NeuejmEuVjOHPhiPJTzt1V/b/97UCGvz5Cnp3vy6b7r1UVcftT+wmvtDrQGG3z4hdfuJ TlS3VkJoEMK8QI/6uyjW0oQWItxFTNjHUOZspdyBkrBJIDqWlz1r9+vjmwGyzHgMFMdr 1vZsAJgjyDlyGY45vnaAyewIMYaqwY+N8+n2us+KmxgEwNWPkCieij4D5hDsvAWDQTDK Wwb7NH212kUpjGoEaWS1POyInoPhVGm9cPtV/CTlbHiWS+pxPwUJ3VuLR8FFIikrxQzY TMyg== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:sender:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version :references:in-reply-to:message-id:subject:cc:to:from:date; bh=CAyUyvdnjZJ1uvlRSpk+ppQ+surWc1327CI5mzOZ1GA=; b=riYP2UrYL6anwxGW49YEaYb2YFRAwjXLw1bdnTqSHDOC8TT4znUFbuXjb8EFjvDNSH PYhlEwFPNlJDKsJgG/FbT+mjRvqy8LVIz1FHhj5uY46ruuIY2pfJSHrBxFGt9S/B51bX 9jj3em42uTEyIguCuXfbgN94cuoPFU06Lv0y1Dwe/8HQW5QUo29nTg4wW28/G36GLP3E 6+hTzBTSOXci3Bh3MTjueM4xmpIm/cqDqjM9u3N7Vbly/eozQVt+Eup/2QLOJ360rra5 ZeHl66bmihHz4sBvtR/999DEwPnvLFXveiA4Ch9O9Ei0SsFkTqnW1VtOUw4phhOwmAN8 mo/g== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org. [209.132.180.67]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id c25si9432715ejm.224.2019.11.27.07.16.52; Wed, 27 Nov 2019 07:17:16 -0800 (PST) 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; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727312AbfK0PPA (ORCPT + 99 others); Wed, 27 Nov 2019 10:15:00 -0500 Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.99]:44296 "EHLO mail.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726655AbfK0PPA (ORCPT ); Wed, 27 Nov 2019 10:15:00 -0500 Received: from gandalf.local.home (cpe-66-24-58-225.stny.res.rr.com [66.24.58.225]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id F1A8B20674; Wed, 27 Nov 2019 15:14:58 +0000 (UTC) Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2019 10:14:56 -0500 From: Steven Rostedt To: Zhenzhong Duan Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mingo@redhat.com, peterz@infradead.org, juri.lelli@redhat.com, vincent.guittot@linaro.org, dietmar.eggemann@arm.com, bsegall@google.com, mgorman@suse.de Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/clock: use static_branch_likely() check at sched_clock_running Message-ID: <20191127101456.2c814108@gandalf.local.home> In-Reply-To: <1574843848-26825-1-git-send-email-zhenzhong.duan@oracle.com> References: <1574843848-26825-1-git-send-email-zhenzhong.duan@oracle.com> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.17.3 (GTK+ 2.24.32; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 27 Nov 2019 16:37:28 +0800 Zhenzhong Duan wrote: > sched_clock_running is enabled early at bootup stage and never > disabled. So hints that to compiler by using static_branch_likely() > rather than static_branch_unlikely(). Looks like the confusion was the moving of the "!": - if (unlikely(!sched_clock_running)) + if (!static_branch_unlikely(&sched_clock_running)) Where, it was unlikely that !sched_clock_running would be true, but because the "!" was moved outside the "unlikely()" it makes the test "likely()". That is, if we added an intermediate step, it would have been: if (!likely(sched_clock_running)) which would have prevented the mistake that this patch fixes. Reviewed-by: Steven Rostedt (VMware) -- Steve > > Fixes: 46457ea464f5 ("sched/clock: Use static key for sched_clock_running") > Signed-off-by: Zhenzhong Duan > --- > kernel/sched/clock.c | 6 +++--- > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/kernel/sched/clock.c b/kernel/sched/clock.c > index 1152259..12bca64 100644 > --- a/kernel/sched/clock.c > +++ b/kernel/sched/clock.c > @@ -370,7 +370,7 @@ u64 sched_clock_cpu(int cpu) > if (sched_clock_stable()) > return sched_clock() + __sched_clock_offset; > > - if (!static_branch_unlikely(&sched_clock_running)) > + if (!static_branch_likely(&sched_clock_running)) > return sched_clock(); > > preempt_disable_notrace(); > @@ -393,7 +393,7 @@ void sched_clock_tick(void) > if (sched_clock_stable()) > return; > > - if (!static_branch_unlikely(&sched_clock_running)) > + if (!static_branch_likely(&sched_clock_running)) > return; > > lockdep_assert_irqs_disabled(); > @@ -460,7 +460,7 @@ void __init sched_clock_init(void) > > u64 sched_clock_cpu(int cpu) > { > - if (!static_branch_unlikely(&sched_clock_running)) > + if (!static_branch_likely(&sched_clock_running)) > return 0; > > return sched_clock();