From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1752850AbbCQIG0 (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Tue, 17 Mar 2015 04:06:26 -0400
Received: from mail-wi0-f169.google.com ([209.85.212.169]:38683 "EHLO
	mail-wi0-f169.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1752026AbbCQIGR (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Tue, 17 Mar 2015 04:06:17 -0400
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2015 09:06:13 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
To: Wanpeng Li <wanpeng.li@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>, Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@arm.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND v10] sched/deadline: support dl task migration
 during cpu hotplug
Message-ID: <20150317080612.GA28235@gmail.com>
References: <1426231647-11966-1-git-send-email-wanpeng.li@linux.intel.com>
 <20150316150101.GA18521@gmail.com>
 <20150316230110.GA14994@kernel>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20150316230110.GA14994@kernel>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org


* Wanpeng Li <wanpeng.li@linux.intel.com> wrote:

> Hi Ingo,
> On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 04:01:02PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >> +
> >> +			/*
> >> +			 * If cannot preempt any rq, fallback to pick any
> >> +			 * online cpu.
> >
> >s/If cannot/If we cannot
> >s/fallback/fall back
> 
> Will do.
> 
> >
> >> +			 */
> >> +			fallback = true;
> >> +			cpu = cpumask_any_and(cpu_active_mask,
> >> +						tsk_cpus_allowed(p));
> >
> >shouldn't be on separate lines - but this is also a sign that the guts 
> 
> Otherwise there is a "WARNING: line over 80 characters".

Yes, but did your reaction to that tool's warning improve the code? I 
don't think so. If do what I suggested and reduce indentation a bit, 
you'll fix the warning _and_ improve the code. Win-win.

> > of this new code should be in a helper function, not inside 
> > several layers of branches.
> 
> Do you mean the whole patch should be in a helper function?

Probably.

> >> +			if (cpu >= nr_cpu_ids) {
> >> +				if (dl_bandwidth_enabled()) {
> >> +					/*
> >> +					 * Fail to find any suitable cpu.
> >> +					 * The task will never come back!
> >> +					 */
> >> +					WARN_ON(1);
> >
> > Can this condition happen to users with a non-buggy kernel?
> 
> What do you prefer? ;-)

That was a yes/no question: can this condition trigger on correctly 
working kernels?

Thanks,

	Ingo