[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2022 09:14:50 +0800
From: Aubrey Li <aubrey.li@...ux.intel.com>
To: Lin Shengwang <linshengwang1@...wei.com>, peterz@...radead.org,
mingo@...hat.com, juri.lelli@...hat.com, vincent.guittot@...aro.org
Cc: dietmar.eggemann@....com, rostedt@...dmis.org, bsegall@...gle.com,
mgorman@...e.de, bristot@...hat.com, vschneid@...hat.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, cj.chengjian@...wei.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH -next] sched/core: Fix the bug that traversal in
sched_group_cookie_match is wrong
On 10/8/22 10:27, Lin Shengwang wrote:
> In commit 97886d9dcd86 ("sched: Migration changes for core scheduling"),
> sched_group_cookie_match() was added to help finding cookie matched
> group, but was inconsistent with the actual purpose.
>
> Using cpu_rq(cpu) instead of rq to fix the bug.
>
> Fixes: 97886d9dcd86 ("sched: Migration changes for core scheduling")
> Signed-off-by: Lin Shengwang <linshengwang1@...wei.com>
> ---
> kernel/sched/sched.h | 18 +++++++++---------
> 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/sched.h b/kernel/sched/sched.h
> index 23c6f9f42ba1..1ba602139840 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/sched.h
> +++ b/kernel/sched/sched.h
> @@ -1182,6 +1182,14 @@ static inline bool is_migration_disabled(struct task_struct *p)
> #endif
> }
>
> +DECLARE_PER_CPU_SHARED_ALIGNED(struct rq, runqueues);
> +
> +#define cpu_rq(cpu) (&per_cpu(runqueues, (cpu)))
> +#define this_rq() this_cpu_ptr(&runqueues)
> +#define task_rq(p) cpu_rq(task_cpu(p))
> +#define cpu_curr(cpu) (cpu_rq(cpu)->curr)
> +#define raw_rq() raw_cpu_ptr(&runqueues)
> +
> struct sched_group;
> #ifdef CONFIG_SCHED_CORE
> static inline struct cpumask *sched_group_span(struct sched_group *sg);
> @@ -1269,7 +1277,7 @@ static inline bool sched_group_cookie_match(struct rq *rq,
> return true;
>
> for_each_cpu_and(cpu, sched_group_span(group), p->cpus_ptr) {
> - if (sched_core_cookie_match(rq, p))
> + if (sched_core_cookie_match(cpu_rq(cpu), p))> return true;
> }
> return false;
This looks a proper fix to me. Thanks!
-Aubrey
Powered by blists - more mailing lists