From: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@gmail.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com>
Cc: mingo@redhat.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, konrad.wilk@oracle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/deadline: Test for CPU's presence explicitly
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2014 16:49:26 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <53022F86.2080204@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20140217145027.GU27965@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
On 02/17/2014 03:50 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 09:12:33AM -0500, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
>> A hot-removed CPU may have ID that is numerically larger than the number of
>> existing CPUs in the system (e.g. we can unplug CPU 4 from a system that
>> has CPUs 0, 1 and 4).
>>
>> Thus the WARN_ONs should check whether the CPU in question is currently
>> present, not whether its ID value is less than num_present_cpus().
>>
>> Reported-by: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@oracle.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com>
>
> Thanks!, please also always CC the author of the code in question.
>
Thanks!
- Juri
>> ---
>> kernel/sched/cpudeadline.c | 6 +++---
>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/kernel/sched/cpudeadline.c b/kernel/sched/cpudeadline.c
>> index 045fc74..5b8838b 100644
>> --- a/kernel/sched/cpudeadline.c
>> +++ b/kernel/sched/cpudeadline.c
>> @@ -70,7 +70,7 @@ static void cpudl_heapify(struct cpudl *cp, int idx)
>>
>> static void cpudl_change_key(struct cpudl *cp, int idx, u64 new_dl)
>> {
>> - WARN_ON(idx > num_present_cpus() || idx == IDX_INVALID);
>> + WARN_ON(!cpu_present(idx) || idx == IDX_INVALID);
>>
>> if (dl_time_before(new_dl, cp->elements[idx].dl)) {
>> cp->elements[idx].dl = new_dl;
>> @@ -117,7 +117,7 @@ int cpudl_find(struct cpudl *cp, struct task_struct *p,
>> }
>>
>> out:
>> - WARN_ON(best_cpu > num_present_cpus() && best_cpu != -1);
>> + WARN_ON(!cpu_present(best_cpu) && best_cpu != -1);
>>
>> return best_cpu;
>> }
>> @@ -137,7 +137,7 @@ void cpudl_set(struct cpudl *cp, int cpu, u64 dl, int is_valid)
>> int old_idx, new_cpu;
>> unsigned long flags;
>>
>> - WARN_ON(cpu > num_present_cpus());
>> + WARN_ON(!cpu_present(cpu));
>>
>> raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&cp->lock, flags);
>> old_idx = cp->cpu_to_idx[cpu];
>> --
>> 1.8.1.4
>>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-02-17 15:49 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-02-17 14:12 [PATCH] sched/deadline: Test for CPU's presence explicitly Boris Ostrovsky
2014-02-17 14:50 ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-02-17 15:49 ` Juri Lelli [this message]
2014-02-21 20:32 ` [tip:sched/urgent] sched/deadline: Test for CPU' s " tip-bot for Boris Ostrovsky
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=53022F86.2080204@gmail.com \
--to=juri.lelli@gmail.com \
--cc=boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com \
--cc=konrad.wilk@oracle.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.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