Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 20 Dec 2013 18:29:46 -0500 | From | Steven Rostedt <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 09/13] sched: Add bandwidth management for sched_dl |
| |
On Fri, 20 Dec 2013 22:44:13 +0100 Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
> @@ -5056,10 +5018,28 @@ static int sched_cpu_inactive(struct not > switch (action & ~CPU_TASKS_FROZEN) { > case CPU_DOWN_PREPARE: > set_cpu_active((long)hcpu, false); > - return NOTIFY_OK; > - default: > - return NOTIFY_DONE; > + break; > } > + > + switch (action) { > + case CPU_DOWN_PREPARE: /* explicitly allow suspend */
Instead of the double switch (which is quite confusing), what about just adding:
if (!(action & CPU_TASKS_FROZEN))
I mean, the above switch gets called for both cases, this only gets called for the one case. This case is a subset of the above. I don't see why an if () would not be better than a double (confusing) switch().
Also, it seems that this change also does not return NOTIFY_DONE if something other than CPU_DOWN_PREPARE is passed in.
-- Steve
> + { > + struct dl_bw *dl_b = dl_bw_of(cpu); > + bool overflow; > + int cpus; > + > + raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&dl_b->lock, flags); > + cpus = dl_bw_cpus(cpu); > + overflow = __dl_overflow(dl_b, cpus, 0, 0); > + raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&dl_b->lock, flags); > + > + if (overflow) > + return notifier_from_errno(-EBUSY); > + } > + break; > + } > + > + return NOTIFY_OK; > } > > static int __init migration_init(void)
| |