Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Wed, 12 May 2021 14:59:55 +0100
From:   Qais Yousef <qais.yousef@arm.com>
To:     Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>
Cc:     Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
        Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Paul McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org>,
        Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>,
        Dietmar Eggeman <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
        Ben Segall <bsegall@google.com>,
        Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@redhat.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        "Uladzislau Rezki (Sony)" <urezki@gmail.com>,
        Neeraj upadhyay <neeraj.iitr10@gmail.com>,
        Aubrey Li <aubrey.li@linux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: Rate limit calls to
 update_blocked_averages() for NOHZ
Message-ID: <20210512135955.suzvxxfilvwg33y2@e107158-lin.cambridge.arm.com>
References: <efad4771-c9d1-5103-de9c-0ec5fa78ee24@linux.intel.com>
 <CAKfTPtDsya_zdUB1ARmoxQs5xWS8o-XrrzyNx5R1iSNrchUXtg@mail.gmail.com>
 <fc0efe4e-0a81-03b8-08cb-029468c57782@linux.intel.com>
 <CAKfTPtCKavGWja42NdTmb+95ppG-WxYzoTJMmtgkCQcA-btfBw@mail.gmail.com>
 <4aa674d9-db49-83d5-356f-a20f9e2a7935@linux.intel.com>
 <CAKfTPtDJaTr_HR2t=9CQ-9x6keu-qzx6okci92AdW5cJG8J9zg@mail.gmail.com>
 <2d2294ce-f1d1-f827-754b-4541c1b43be8@linux.intel.com>
 <ade18978-cd67-6215-28f0-4857c66a99fb@linux.intel.com>
 <CAKfTPtA8nr-fgt4Nw6XqQyT_TEx4uL3nK-ba0xGfkONO+BPG3Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <577b0aae-0111-97aa-0c99-c2a2fcfb5e2e@linux.intel.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <577b0aae-0111-97aa-0c99-c2a2fcfb5e2e@linux.intel.com>
Precedence: bulk

On 05/11/21 10:25, Tim Chen wrote:
> > update_next_balance() is only used in newidle_balance() so we could
> > modify it to  have:
> > 
> > next = max(jiffies+1, next = sd->last_balance + interval)
> 
> Is the extra assignment "next = sd->last_balance + interval" needed?
> This seems more straight forward:
> 
> next = max(jiffies+1, sd->last_balance + interval)

I haven't been following the whole conversation closely, but it's always
interesting when manipulating time in non time_*() functions.

Is this max() safe against wrapping?

Thanks

--
Qais Yousef