From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1752801AbcERIl1 (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Wed, 18 May 2016 04:41:27 -0400
Received: from mail-wm0-f48.google.com ([74.125.82.48]:35736 "EHLO
	mail-wm0-f48.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1751891AbcERIlX (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Wed, 18 May 2016 04:41:23 -0400
Date: Wed, 18 May 2016 09:41:20 +0100
From: Matt Fleming <matt@codeblueprint.co.uk>
To: Yuyang Du <yuyang.du@intel.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@lge.com>,
        Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>,
        Luca Abeni <luca.abeni@unitn.it>,
        "Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>,
        Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Wanpeng Li <wanpeng.li@hotmail.com>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net>,
        Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 5/5] sched/core: Add debug code to catch missing
 update_rq_clock()
Message-ID: <20160518084120.GF21993@codeblueprint.co.uk>
References: <1463082593-27777-1-git-send-email-matt@codeblueprint.co.uk>
 <1463082593-27777-6-git-send-email-matt@codeblueprint.co.uk>
 <20160515021439.GC8790@intel.com>
 <20160516094638.GB6574@codeblueprint.co.uk>
 <20160516201109.GD8790@intel.com>
 <20160517122415.GD21993@codeblueprint.co.uk>
 <20160517190127.GE8790@intel.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20160517190127.GE8790@intel.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24+41 (02bc14ed1569) (2015-08-30)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Wed, 18 May, at 03:01:27AM, Yuyang Du wrote:
> 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.

That was sloppy on my part but intentional because that's what the
code looks like in tip/sched/core today.

It was purely meant to demonstrate that setting RQCF_UPDATE just
because RQCF_ACT_SKIP is set does not make sense. You can replace the
clearing line with the correct bit masking operation.

But I get it, the pseudo-code was confusing. I'll send out a v2.

> 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...

Right, I wouldn't actually clear RQCF_UPDATE in v2 of this patch.

> In addition, it looks like multiple skips are possible, so:
 
I'm not sure what you mean, could you elaborate?

> update_rq_clock() {
>         rq->clock_update_flags |= RQCF_UPDATE;
> 
>         ...
> }
> 
> instead of clearing the skip flag there.

Huh? RQCF_*_SKIP are not cleared in update_rq_clock().