* [bug report] sched: Fix priority inversion of cookied task with sibling
@ 2021-05-15 10:39 Dan Carpenter
0 siblings, 0 replies; only message in thread
From: Dan Carpenter @ 2021-05-15 10:39 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: joel; +Cc: kernel-janitors
Hello Joel Fernandes (Google),
This is a semi-automatic email about new static checker warnings.
The patch 7afbba119f0d: "sched: Fix priority inversion of cookied
task with sibling" from Nov 17, 2020, leads to the following Smatch
complaint:
kernel/sched/core.c:5492 pick_next_task()
error: we previously assumed 'next' could be null (see line 5488)
kernel/sched/core.c
5481 /*
5482 * Optimize for common case where this CPU has no cookies
5483 * and there are no cookied tasks running on siblings.
5484 */
5485 if (!need_sync) {
5486 for_each_class(class) {
5487 next = class->pick_task(rq);
5488 if (next)
5489 break;
Is it possible to go through the whole loop withint finding a next?
5490 }
5491
5492 if (!next->core_cookie) {
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I assume not, but I don't read the code, I just forward the warnings
on. I am a bot. Beep Boop!
5493 rq->core_pick = NULL;
5494 /*
5495 * For robustness, update the min_vruntime_fi for
5496 * unconstrained picks as well.
5497 */
5498 WARN_ON_ONCE(fi_before);
5499 task_vruntime_update(rq, next, false);
5500 goto done;
5501 }
5502 }
5503
5504 for_each_cpu(i, smt_mask) {
5505 struct rq *rq_i = cpu_rq(i);
5506
regards,
dan carpenter
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] only message in thread
only message in thread, other threads:[~2021-05-15 10:40 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: (only message) (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2021-05-15 10:39 [bug report] sched: Fix priority inversion of cookied task with sibling Dan Carpenter
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.