Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 6 Dec 2016 09:35:01 +0100 | From | Peter Zijlstra <> | Subject | Re: [RFC v3 1/6] Track the active utilisation |
| |
On Mon, Dec 05, 2016 at 11:30:05PM +0100, luca abeni wrote: > Hi Peter, > > On Fri, 18 Nov 2016 15:23:59 +0100 > Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote: > [...] > > u64 running_bw; > > > > static void add_running_bw(struct sched_dl_entity *dl_se, struct > > dl_rq *dl_rq) { > > u64 old = dl_rq->running_bw; > > > > dl_rq->running_bw += dl_se->dl_bw; > > SCHED_WARN_ON(dl_rq->running_bw < old); /* overflow */ > > } > > > > static void sub_running_bw(struct sched_dl_entity *dl_se, struct > > dl_rq *dl_rq) { > > u64 old = dl_rq->running_bw; > > > > dl_rq->running_bw -= dl_se->dl_bw; > > SCHED_WARN_ON(dl_rq->running_bw > old); /* underflow */ > > } > > I wanted to change "SCHED_WARN_ON(dl_rq->running_bw > old); /* > underflow */" into "if (SCHED_WARN_ON(...)) dl_rq->running_bw = 0" (to > avoid using nonsensical "running_bw" values), but I see that > "SCHED_WARN_ON()" cannot be used inside an if (this seems to be a > difference respect to "SCHED_WARN()").
There's a SCHED_WARN? Did you mean to say WARN_ON()?
And yes, mostly by accident I think, I'm not a big user of that pattern and neglected it when I did SCHED_WARN_ON().
> This is because of the definition used when CONFIG_SCHED_DEBUG is not > defined (I noticed the issue when testing with random kernel > configurations).
I'm fine changing the definition, just find something that works. The current ((void)(x)) thing was to avoid unused complaints -- although I'm not sure there were any.
| |