linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RESEND v10] sched/deadline: support dl task migration during cpu hotplug

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20150317080612.GA28235@gmail.com>
Date:	Tue, 17 Mar 2015 09:06:13 +0100
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To:	Wanpeng Li <wanpeng.li@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@....com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND v10] sched/deadline: support dl task migration
 during cpu hotplug


* Wanpeng Li <wanpeng.li@...ux.intel.com> wrote:

> Hi Ingo,
> On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 04:01:02PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >> +
> >> +			/*
> >> +			 * If cannot preempt any rq, fallback to pick any
> >> +			 * online cpu.
> >
> >s/If cannot/If we cannot
> >s/fallback/fall back
> 
> Will do.
> 
> >
> >> +			 */
> >> +			fallback = true;
> >> +			cpu = cpumask_any_and(cpu_active_mask,
> >> +						tsk_cpus_allowed(p));
> >
> >shouldn't be on separate lines - but this is also a sign that the guts 
> 
> Otherwise there is a "WARNING: line over 80 characters".

Yes, but did your reaction to that tool's warning improve the code? I 
don't think so. If do what I suggested and reduce indentation a bit, 
you'll fix the warning _and_ improve the code. Win-win.

> > of this new code should be in a helper function, not inside 
> > several layers of branches.
> 
> Do you mean the whole patch should be in a helper function?

Probably.

> >> +			if (cpu >= nr_cpu_ids) {
> >> +				if (dl_bandwidth_enabled()) {
> >> +					/*
> >> +					 * Fail to find any suitable cpu.
> >> +					 * The task will never come back!
> >> +					 */
> >> +					WARN_ON(1);
> >
> > Can this condition happen to users with a non-buggy kernel?
> 
> What do you prefer? ;-)

That was a yes/no question: can this condition trigger on correctly 
working kernels?

Thanks,

	Ingo
--
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/