From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner+w=401wt.eu-S1754494AbZBZIRU@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1754494AbZBZIRU (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Thu, 26 Feb 2009 03:17:20 -0500
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751687AbZBZIRL
	(ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel-outgoing>);
	Thu, 26 Feb 2009 03:17:11 -0500
Received: from cn.fujitsu.com ([222.73.24.84]:56863 "EHLO song.cn.fujitsu.com"
	rhost-flags-OK-FAIL-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1751259AbZBZIRK (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Thu, 26 Feb 2009 03:17:10 -0500
Message-ID: <49A6501B.7040604@cn.fujitsu.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2009 16:17:31 +0800
From: Li Zefan <lizf@cn.fujitsu.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (X11/20071115)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
CC: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>, Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>,
       Paul Menage <menage@google.com>,
       Balbir Singh <balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
       LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] cpuacct: add a branch prediction
References: <49A6475F.4000502@cn.fujitsu.com> <20090226170738.a982057b.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
In-Reply-To: <20090226170738.a982057b.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Feb 2009 15:40:15 +0800
> Li Zefan <lizf@cn.fujitsu.com> wrote:
> 
>> cpuacct_charge() is in fast-path, and checking of !cpuacct_susys.active
>> always returns false after cpuacct has been initialized at system boot.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Li Zefan <lizf@cn.fujitsu.com>
>> ---
>>  kernel/sched.c |    2 +-
>>  1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/kernel/sched.c b/kernel/sched.c
>> index 410eec4..fd2f7fc 100644
>> --- a/kernel/sched.c
>> +++ b/kernel/sched.c
>> @@ -9589,7 +9589,7 @@ static void cpuacct_charge(struct task_struct *tsk, u64 cputime)
>>  	struct cpuacct *ca;
>>  	int cpu;
>>  
>> -	if (!cpuacct_subsys.active)
>> +	if (unlikely(!cpuacct_subsys.active))
>>  		return;
>>  
> (Just curious)
> I wonder "ca = task_ca(tsk)" will return NULL if cpuacct subsys is not initalized.

Yes, it will be NULL, and that's why we need this check.

> Then, can we just remove this check ?
> 

cpuacct_charge() can be called before cpuacct is initialized, so we have to check this
case here.