Re: [PATCH 5/5] sched/deadline: Use return value of SCHED_WARN_ON() in bw accounting

[luca abeni]

Hi Dietmar,

On Fri, 26 Jul 2019 09:27:56 +0100
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggem...@arm.com> wrote:

> To make the decision whether to set rq or running bw to 0 in underflow
> case use the return value of SCHED_WARN_ON() rather than an extra if
> condition.

I think I tried this at some point, but if I remember well this
solution does not work correctly when SCHED_DEBUG is not enabled.



                        Luca


> 
> Signed-off-by: Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggem...@arm.com>
> ---
>  kernel/sched/deadline.c | 6 ++----
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/deadline.c b/kernel/sched/deadline.c
> index a9cb52ceb761..66c594b5507e 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/deadline.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/deadline.c
> @@ -95,8 +95,7 @@ void __sub_running_bw(u64 dl_bw, struct dl_rq
> *dl_rq) 
>       lockdep_assert_held(&(rq_of_dl_rq(dl_rq))->lock);
>       dl_rq->running_bw -= dl_bw;
> -     SCHED_WARN_ON(dl_rq->running_bw > old); /* underflow */
> -     if (dl_rq->running_bw > old)
> +     if (SCHED_WARN_ON(dl_rq->running_bw > old)) /* underflow */
>               dl_rq->running_bw = 0;
>       /* kick cpufreq (see the comment in kernel/sched/sched.h). */
>       cpufreq_update_util(rq_of_dl_rq(dl_rq), 0);
> @@ -119,8 +118,7 @@ void __sub_rq_bw(u64 dl_bw, struct dl_rq *dl_rq)
>  
>       lockdep_assert_held(&(rq_of_dl_rq(dl_rq))->lock);
>       dl_rq->this_bw -= dl_bw;
> -     SCHED_WARN_ON(dl_rq->this_bw > old); /* underflow */
> -     if (dl_rq->this_bw > old)
> +     if (SCHED_WARN_ON(dl_rq->this_bw > old)) /* underflow */
>               dl_rq->this_bw = 0;
>       SCHED_WARN_ON(dl_rq->running_bw > dl_rq->this_bw);
>  }