[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160517190127.GE8790@intel.com>
Date: Wed, 18 May 2016 03:01:27 +0800
From: Yuyang Du <yuyang.du@...el.com>
To: Matt Fleming <matt@...eblueprint.co.uk>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@....com>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Luca Abeni <luca.abeni@...tn.it>,
"Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Wanpeng Li <wanpeng.li@...mail.com>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>,
Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 5/5] sched/core: Add debug code to catch missing
update_rq_clock()
On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 01:24:15PM +0100, Matt Fleming wrote:
> So, if the code looks like the following, either now or in the future,
>
> static void __schedule(bool preempt)
> {
> ...
> /* Clear RQCF_ACT_SKIP */
> rq->clock_update_flags = 0;
> ...
> delta = rq_clock();
> }
Sigh, you even said "Clear RQCF_ACT_SKIP", but you not only clear it,
you clear everything. And if you clear the RQCF_UPDATE also (maybe you
shouldn't, but actually it does not matter), of course you will get
a warning...
In addition, it looks like multiple skips are possible, so:
update_rq_clock() {
rq->clock_update_flags |= RQCF_UPDATE;
...
}
instead of clearing the skip flag there.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists