Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 6 Feb 2023 11:57:20 -0500 | From | Phil Auld <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2] sched: pick_next_rt_entity(): checked list_entry |
| |
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.
Cheers, Phil
> > -- Steve > > > rt_rq = group_rt_rq(rt_se); > > } while (rt_rq); > > >
--
| |