[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140203095302.GA13242@austad.us>
Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2014 10:53:02 +0100
From: Henrik Austad <henrik@...tad.us>
To: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...il.com>
Cc: peterz@...radead.org, mingo@...hat.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/core: fix sched_rt_global_validate
On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 05:43:27PM +0100, Juri Lelli wrote:
> Don't compare sysctl_sched_rt_runtime against sysctl_sched_rt_period if
> the former is equal to RUNTIME_INF, otherwise disabling -rt bandwidth
> management always fails.
>
> Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>
> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
> Signed-off-by: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...il.com>
> ---
> kernel/sched/core.c | 3 ++-
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
> index 210a12a..5c0a304 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/core.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
> @@ -7477,7 +7477,8 @@ static int sched_rt_global_validate(void)
> if (sysctl_sched_rt_period <= 0)
> return -EINVAL;
>
> - if (sysctl_sched_rt_runtime > sysctl_sched_rt_period)
> + if ((sysctl_sched_rt_runtime != RUNTIME_INF) &&
> + (sysctl_sched_rt_runtime > sysctl_sched_rt_period))
> return -EINVAL;
Won't this be caught by the test above?
#define RUNTIME_INF ((u64)~0ULL)
which means that if sysctl_sched_rt_runtime is set to RUNTIME_INF, it will
trigger on the previous test, and the first part of this test will always
be true.
Or have I suffered catastrophic monday-morning braindamage?
--
Henrik Austad
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists