Messages in this thread Patch in this message | | | Date | Tue, 14 Apr 2020 12:52:20 +0200 | From | Peter Zijlstra <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/2] sched: eliminate bandwidth race between throttling and distribution |
| |
On Fri, Apr 10, 2020 at 03:52:07PM -0700, Josh Don wrote:
> -/* returns 0 on failure to allocate runtime */ > +/* returns 0 on failure to allocate runtime, called with cfs_b->lock held */
That's a gross mis-spelling of lockdep_assert_held(); and since I was editing things anyway it now looks like so:
--- a/kernel/sched/fair.c +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c @@ -4587,11 +4587,13 @@ static inline struct cfs_bandwidth *tg_c return &tg->cfs_bandwidth; } -/* returns 0 on failure to allocate runtime, called with cfs_b->lock held */ +/* returns 0 on failure to allocate runtime */ static int __assign_cfs_rq_runtime(struct cfs_bandwidth *cfs_b, struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq, u64 target_runtime) { - u64 amount = 0, min_amount; + u64 min_amount, amount = 0; + + lockdep_assert_held(cfs_rq->lock); /* note: this is a positive sum as runtime_remaining <= 0 */ min_amount = target_runtime - cfs_rq->runtime_remaining; @@ -4616,12 +4618,11 @@ static int __assign_cfs_rq_runtime(struc /* returns 0 on failure to allocate runtime */ static int assign_cfs_rq_runtime(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq) { - int ret; struct cfs_bandwidth *cfs_b = tg_cfs_bandwidth(cfs_rq->tg); + int ret; raw_spin_lock(&cfs_b->lock); - ret = __assign_cfs_rq_runtime(cfs_b, cfs_rq, - sched_cfs_bandwidth_slice()); + ret = __assign_cfs_rq_runtime(cfs_b, cfs_rq, sched_cfs_bandwidth_slice()); raw_spin_unlock(&cfs_b->lock); return ret;
| |