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 S1752057AbdFLBnX (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Sun, 11 Jun 2017 21:43:23 -0400
Received: from LGEAMRELO11.lge.com ([156.147.23.51]:39372 "EHLO
        lgeamrelo11.lge.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1751936AbdFLBnW (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Sun, 11 Jun 2017 21:43:22 -0400
X-Original-SENDERIP: 156.147.1.126
X-Original-MAILFROM: byungchul.park@lge.com
X-Original-SENDERIP: 10.177.222.33
X-Original-MAILFROM: byungchul.park@lge.com
Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2017 10:43:08 +0900
From: Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@lge.com>
To: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@arm.com>
Cc: peterz@infradead.org, mingo@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        juri.lelli@gmail.com, rostedt@goodmis.org, kernel-team@lge.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] sched/deadline: Don't return invalid cpu in
 cpudl_maximum_cpu()
Message-ID: <20170612014307.GH3623@X58A-UD3R>
References: <1496388663-29067-1-git-send-email-byungchul.park@lge.com>
 <1496388663-29067-2-git-send-email-byungchul.park@lge.com>
 <20170606151225.xlhrnh2usajmlu52@e106622-lin>
 <20170606234224.GD3623@X58A-UD3R>
 <20170607001454.GE3623@X58A-UD3R>
 <20170608140243.omvx62ivewtofk75@e106622-lin>
 <20170609024327.GG3623@X58A-UD3R>
 <20170609114206.jy7hyr6xnmwwipg5@e106622-lin>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20170609114206.jy7hyr6xnmwwipg5@e106622-lin>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Fri, Jun 09, 2017 at 12:42:06PM +0100, Juri Lelli wrote:
> > 
> > This would also work and avoid unnecessary warning. I missed the check
> > to avoid it. https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/3/23/175 was an original patch
> > doing it.
> > 
> > By the way, frankly speaking, I don't like accessing the cpudl instant
> > several times without protection. I rather prefer the following..
> > 
> > But whatever. I like both.
> > 
> > Thnaks,
> > Byungchul
> > 
> > ----->8-----
> > diff --git a/kernel/sched/cpudeadline.c b/kernel/sched/cpudeadline.c
> > index 9b314a9..1d369cf 100644
> > --- a/kernel/sched/cpudeadline.c
> > +++ b/kernel/sched/cpudeadline.c
> > @@ -137,11 +137,17 @@ int cpudl_find(struct cpudl *cp, struct task_struct *p,
> >  	    cpumask_and(later_mask, cp->free_cpus, &p->cpus_allowed)) {
> >  		best_cpu = cpumask_any(later_mask);
> >  		goto out;
> > -	} else if (cpumask_test_cpu(cpudl_maximum_cpu(cp), &p->cpus_allowed) &&
> > -			dl_time_before(dl_se->deadline, cpudl_maximum_dl(cp))) {
> > -		best_cpu = cpudl_maximum_cpu(cp);
> > -		if (later_mask)
> > -			cpumask_set_cpu(best_cpu, later_mask);
> > +	} else {
> > +		int max_cpu = cpudl_maximum_cpu(cp);
> > +		u64 max_dl = cpudl_maximum_dl(cp);
> > +
> > +		if (max_cpu != -1 &&
> > +		    cpumask_test_cpu(max_cpu, &p->cpus_allowed) &&
> > +		    dl_time_before(dl_se->deadline, max_dl)) {
> 
> Don't we access cp 3 times both ways?

I wonder if I miss something.. As you said, in most cases it will, but
I am not sure if we can guarentee that, regardless of arches or
compile optimization level. Sorry if I am wrong.