Messages in this thread | | | From | bsegall@google ... | Subject | Re: [PATCH -next v2] sched/fair: fix -Wunused-but-set-variable warnings | Date | Fri, 23 Aug 2019 10:28:02 -0700 |
| |
Dave Chiluk <chiluk+linux@indeed.com> writes:
> On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 12:36 PM <bsegall@google.com> wrote: >> >> Qian Cai <cai@lca.pw> writes: >> >> > The linux-next commit "sched/fair: Fix low cpu usage with high >> > throttling by removing expiration of cpu-local slices" [1] introduced a >> > few compilation warnings, >> > >> > kernel/sched/fair.c: In function '__refill_cfs_bandwidth_runtime': >> > kernel/sched/fair.c:4365:6: warning: variable 'now' set but not used >> > [-Wunused-but-set-variable] >> > kernel/sched/fair.c: In function 'start_cfs_bandwidth': >> > kernel/sched/fair.c:4992:6: warning: variable 'overrun' set but not used >> > [-Wunused-but-set-variable] >> > >> > Also, __refill_cfs_bandwidth_runtime() does no longer update the >> > expiration time, so fix the comments accordingly. >> > >> > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/1558121424-2914-1-git-send-email-chiluk+linux@indeed.com/ >> > >> > Signed-off-by: Qian Cai <cai@lca.pw> >> >> Reviewed-by: Ben Segall <bsegall@google.com> >> >> > --- >> > >> > v2: Keep hrtimer_forward_now() in start_cfs_bandwidth() per Ben. >> > >> > kernel/sched/fair.c | 19 ++++++------------- >> > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-) >> > >> > diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c >> > index 84959d3285d1..06782491691f 100644 >> > --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c >> > +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c >> > @@ -4354,21 +4354,16 @@ static inline u64 sched_cfs_bandwidth_slice(void) >> > } >> > >> > /* >> > - * Replenish runtime according to assigned quota and update expiration time. >> > - * We use sched_clock_cpu directly instead of rq->clock to avoid adding >> > - * additional synchronization around rq->lock. >> > + * Replenish runtime according to assigned quota. We use sched_clock_cpu >> > + * directly instead of rq->clock to avoid adding additional synchronization >> > + * around rq->lock. >> > * >> > * requires cfs_b->lock >> > */ >> > void __refill_cfs_bandwidth_runtime(struct cfs_bandwidth *cfs_b) >> > { >> > - u64 now; >> > - >> > - if (cfs_b->quota == RUNTIME_INF) >> > - return; >> > - >> > - now = sched_clock_cpu(smp_processor_id()); >> > - cfs_b->runtime = cfs_b->quota; >> > + if (cfs_b->quota != RUNTIME_INF) >> > + cfs_b->runtime = cfs_b->quota; >> > } >> > >> > static inline struct cfs_bandwidth *tg_cfs_bandwidth(struct task_group *tg) >> > @@ -4989,15 +4984,13 @@ static void init_cfs_rq_runtime(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq) >> > >> > void start_cfs_bandwidth(struct cfs_bandwidth *cfs_b) >> > { >> > - u64 overrun; >> > - >> > lockdep_assert_held(&cfs_b->lock); >> > >> > if (cfs_b->period_active) >> > return; >> > >> > cfs_b->period_active = 1; >> > - overrun = hrtimer_forward_now(&cfs_b->period_timer, cfs_b->period); >> > + hrtimer_forward_now(&cfs_b->period_timer, cfs_b->period); >> > hrtimer_start_expires(&cfs_b->period_timer, HRTIMER_MODE_ABS_PINNED); >> > } > > Looks good. > Reviewed-by: Dave Chiluk <chiluk+linux@indeed.com> > > Sorry for the slow response, I was on vacation. > > @Ben do you think it would be useful to still capture overrun, and > WARN on any overruns? We wouldn't expect overruns, but their > existence would indicate an over-loaded node or too short of a > cfs_period. Additionally, it would be interesting to see if we could > capture the offset between when the bandwidth was refilled, and when > the timer was supposed to fire. I've always done all my calculations > assuming that the timer fires and is handled exceedingly close to the > time it was supposed to fire. Although, if the node is running that > overloaded you probably have many more problems than worrying about > timer warnings.
That "overrun" there is not really an overrun - it's the number of complete periods the timer has been inactive for. It was used so that a given tg's period timer would keep the same phase/offset/whatever-you-call-it, even if it goes idle for a while, rather than having the next period start N ms after a task wakes up.
Also, poor choices by userspace is not generally something the kernel generally WARNs on, as I understand it.
| |