From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@kernel.org>
Cc: Jiapeng Chong <jiapeng.chong@linux.alibaba.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
Ben Segall <bsegall@google.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>,
Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@redhat.com>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched: replace if (cond) BUG() with BUG_ON()
Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2021 21:05:29 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20210317200529.GB3830960@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAK8P3a2qqWV3RGvb4ooiz4LS5GAKL0OHEiVtdgnHAgtmiRDSNA@mail.gmail.com>
* Arnd Bergmann <arnd@kernel.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 17, 2021 at 9:45 AM Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> wrote:
> > * Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> wrote:
> > > * Jiapeng Chong <jiapeng.chong@linux.alibaba.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Fix the following coccicheck warnings:
> > > >
> > > > ./kernel/sched/core.c:8039:2-5: WARNING: Use BUG_ON instead of if
> > > > condition followed by BUG.
> > > >
> > > > Reported-by: Abaci Robot <abaci@linux.alibaba.com>
> > > > Signed-off-by: Jiapeng Chong <jiapeng.chong@linux.alibaba.com>
> > > > ---
> > > > kernel/sched/core.c | 3 +--
> > > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
> > > > index 9819121..7392bc0 100644
> > > > --- a/kernel/sched/core.c
> > > > +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
> > > > @@ -8035,8 +8035,7 @@ void __init sched_init_smp(void)
> > > > mutex_unlock(&sched_domains_mutex);
> > > >
> > > > /* Move init over to a non-isolated CPU */
> > > > - if (set_cpus_allowed_ptr(current, housekeeping_cpumask(HK_FLAG_DOMAIN)) < 0)
> > > > - BUG();
> > > > + BUG(set_cpus_allowed_ptr(current, housekeeping_cpumask(HK_FLAG_DOMAIN)) < 0);
> > >
> > > The patch doesn't quite do what the title & changelog claims...
> >
> > More importantly, we use this pattern when we don't want !CONFIG_BUG
> > to remove the 'condition'.
> >
> > I.e. the "side effect" here is important scheduler logic. It must
> > never be optimized out.
>
> This behavior for !CONFIG_BUG has changed a while ago, it is now safe
> to rely on the side-effect of the BUG_ON() condition regardless of
> CONFIG_BUG. When that option is disabled, running into the condition
> just ends up in a "do {} while (1)" loop.
Dunno, I still think it's not a particularly clean pattern to 'hide'
significant side effects within a BUG_ON().
Thanks,
Ingo
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-03-17 20:06 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-03-17 2:45 [PATCH] sched: replace if (cond) BUG() with BUG_ON() Jiapeng Chong
2021-03-17 8:39 ` Ingo Molnar
2021-03-17 8:41 ` Ingo Molnar
2021-03-17 12:55 ` Arnd Bergmann
2021-03-17 20:05 ` Ingo Molnar [this message]
2021-03-17 21:38 ` Arnd Bergmann
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2021-03-17 6:45 Jiapeng Chong
2021-03-17 7:00 ` Christophe Leroy
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20210317200529.GB3830960@gmail.com \
--to=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=arnd@kernel.org \
--cc=bristot@redhat.com \
--cc=bsegall@google.com \
--cc=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \
--cc=jiapeng.chong@linux.alibaba.com \
--cc=juri.lelli@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mgorman@suse.de \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox