[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1498831200.6130.13.camel@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2017 10:00:00 -0400
From: Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
To: mingo@...nel.org, fransklaver@...il.com, hpa@...or.com,
fweisbec@...il.com, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
tglx@...utronix.de, wanpeng.li@...mail.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, garsilva@...eddedor.com,
sgruszka@...hat.com, peterz@...radead.org,
linux-tip-commits@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [tip:sched/core] sched/cputime: Refactor the cputime_adjust()
code
On Fri, 2017-06-30 at 06:10 -0700, tip-bot for Gustavo A. R. Silva
wrote:
> +++ b/kernel/sched/cputime.c
> @@ -615,19 +615,13 @@ static void cputime_adjust(struct task_cputime
> *curr,
> * userspace. Once a task gets some ticks, the monotonicy
> code at
> * 'update' will ensure things converge to the observed
> ratio.
> */
> - if (stime == 0) {
> - utime = rtime;
> - goto update;
> + if (stime != 0) {
> + if (utime == 0)
> + stime = rtime;
> + else
> + stime = scale_stime(stime, rtime, stime +
> utime);
> }
>
> - if (utime == 0) {
> - stime = rtime;
> - goto update;
> - }
> -
> - stime = scale_stime(stime, rtime, stime + utime);
> -
> -update:
Wait, what?
This get rid of the utime = rtime assignment, when
stime == 0. That could be a correctness issue.
> /*
> * Make sure stime doesn't go backwards; this preserves
> monotonicity
> * for utime because rtime is monotonic.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists