lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2023]   [Feb]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2] sched: pick_next_rt_entity(): checked list_entry
On Mon, 6 Feb 2023 at 17:57, Phil Auld <pauld@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Feb 06, 2023 at 11:23:42AM -0500 Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > On Tue, 31 Jan 2023 13:01:16 +0000
> > Pietro Borrello <borrello@diag.uniroma1.it> wrote:
> >
> > > index ed2a47e4ddae..c024529d8416 100644
> > > --- a/kernel/sched/rt.c
> > > +++ b/kernel/sched/rt.c
> > > @@ -1777,6 +1777,7 @@ static struct sched_rt_entity *pick_next_rt_entity(struct rt_rq *rt_rq)
> > > BUG_ON(idx >= MAX_RT_PRIO);
> > >
> > > queue = array->queue + idx;
> > > + SCHED_WARN_ON(list_empty(queue));
> >
> > I wonder if we should make this:
> >
> > if (SCHED_WARN_ON(list_empty(queue)))
> > return NULL;
> >
> > > next = list_entry(queue->next, struct sched_rt_entity, run_list);
> > >
> > > return next;
> > > @@ -1789,7 +1790,6 @@ static struct task_struct *_pick_next_task_rt(struct rq *rq)
> > >
> > > do {
> > > rt_se = pick_next_rt_entity(rt_rq);
> > > - BUG_ON(!rt_se);
> >
> > if (unlikely(!rt_se))
> > return NULL;
>
> I think that's better than taking a digger in one of the subsequent macros.
>

Thanks for the feedback.
Fixed in v3: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230128-list-entry-null-check-sched-v3-1-b1a71bd1ac6b@diag.uniroma1.it/T/#u

Best regards,
Pietro

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2023-03-27 00:11    [W:0.047 / U:0.796 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site