Peter,
Is there anything in this patch that you'd consider salvageable, or
would it be better to just throw the whole thing out? In either case, I
appreciate your honesty regarding this patch's (lack of) quality, and
apologize for what is most likely a waste of your time.
On Sat, Sep 22, 2018 at 12:26:40PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 21, 2018 at 03:22:03PM -0500, PierceGriffiths wrote:
> > diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
> > index 625bc9897f62..443a1f235cfd 100644
> > --- a/kernel/sched/core.c
> > +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
> > @@ -617,12 +617,8 @@ bool sched_can_stop_tick(struct rq *rq)
> > * If there are more than one RR tasks, we need the tick to effect the
> > * actual RR behaviour.
> > */
> > - if (rq->rt.rr_nr_running) {
> > - if (rq->rt.rr_nr_running == 1)
> > - return true;
> > - else
> > - return false;
> > - }
> > + if (rq->rt.rr_nr_running)
> > + return rq->rt.rr_nr_running == 1;
> >
> > /*
> > * If there's no RR tasks, but FIFO tasks, we can skip the tick, no
>
> That one is OK I suppose.
>
> > diff --git a/kernel/sched/cpufreq.c b/kernel/sched/cpufreq.c
> > index 5e54cbcae673..a8fd4bd68954 100644
> > --- a/kernel/sched/cpufreq.c
> > +++ b/kernel/sched/cpufreq.c
> > @@ -34,10 +34,7 @@ void cpufreq_add_update_util_hook(int cpu, struct
> > update_util_data *data,
> > void (*func)(struct update_util_data *data, u64 time,
> > unsigned int flags))
> > {
> > - if (WARN_ON(!data || !func))
> > - return;
> > -
> > - if (WARN_ON(per_cpu(cpufreq_update_util_data, cpu)))
> > + if (WARN_ON(!data || !func || per_cpu(cpufreq_update_util_data, cpu)))
> > return;
> >
> > data->func = func;
>
> But I'm not a fan of this one. It mixes a different class of function
> and the WARN condition gets too complicated. Its easier to have separate
> warns.
>
> > diff --git a/kernel/sched/cpupri.c b/kernel/sched/cpupri.c
> > index daaadf939ccb..152c133e8247 100644
> > --- a/kernel/sched/cpupri.c
> > +++ b/kernel/sched/cpupri.c
> > @@ -29,20 +29,16 @@
> > #include "sched.h"
> >
> > /* Convert between a 140 based task->prio, and our 102 based cpupri */
> > -static int convert_prio(int prio)
> > +static int convert_prio(const int prio)
> > {
> > - int cpupri;
> > -
> > if (prio == CPUPRI_INVALID)
> > - cpupri = CPUPRI_INVALID;
> > + return CPUPRI_INVALID;
> > else if (prio == MAX_PRIO)
> > - cpupri = CPUPRI_IDLE;
> > + return CPUPRI_IDLE;
> > else if (prio >= MAX_RT_PRIO)
> > - cpupri = CPUPRI_NORMAL;
> > + return CPUPRI_NORMAL;
> > else
> > - cpupri = MAX_RT_PRIO - prio + 1;
> > -
> > - return cpupri;
> > + return MAX_RT_PRIO - prio + 1;
>
> The code looks even better if you leave out the last else.
>
> > }
> >
> > /**
> > @@ -95,10 +91,8 @@ int cpupri_find(struct cpupri *cp, struct task_struct *p,
> > smp_rmb();
> >
> > /* Need to do the rmb for every iteration */
> > - if (skip)
> > - continue;
> > -
> > - if (cpumask_any_and(&p->cpus_allowed, vec->mask) >= nr_cpu_ids)
> > + if (skip || cpumask_any_and(&p->cpus_allowed, vec->mask)
> > + >= nr_cpu_ids)
> > continue;
> >
> > if (lowest_mask) {
>
> That just makes the code ugly for no reason.
>
> > @@ -222,7 +216,7 @@ int cpupri_init(struct cpupri *cp)
> > return 0;
> >
> > cleanup:
> > - for (i--; i >= 0; i--)
> > + while (--i >= 0)
> > free_cpumask_var(cp->pri_to_cpu[i].mask);
> > return -ENOMEM;
> > }
> > diff --git a/kernel/sched/rt.c b/kernel/sched/rt.c
> > index 2e2955a8cf8f..acf1b94669ad 100644
> > --- a/kernel/sched/rt.c
> > +++ b/kernel/sched/rt.c
> > @@ -142,10 +142,12 @@ void free_rt_sched_group(struct task_group *tg)
> > destroy_rt_bandwidth(&tg->rt_bandwidth);
> >
> > for_each_possible_cpu(i) {
> > - if (tg->rt_rq)
> > - kfree(tg->rt_rq[i]);
> > - if (tg->rt_se)
> > - kfree(tg->rt_se[i]);
> > + /* Don't need to check if tg->rt_rq[i]
> > + * or tg->rt_se[i] are NULL, since kfree(NULL)
> > + * simply performs no operation
> > + */
>
> That's an invalid comment style.
>
> > + kfree(tg->rt_rq[i]);
> > + kfree(tg->rt_se[i]);
> > }
> >
> > kfree(tg->rt_rq);
> > @@ -1015,10 +1017,7 @@ enqueue_top_rt_rq(struct rt_rq *rt_rq)
> >
> > BUG_ON(&rq->rt != rt_rq);
> >
> > - if (rt_rq->rt_queued)
> > - return;
> > -
> > - if (rt_rq_throttled(rt_rq))
> > + if (rt_rq->rt_queued || rt_rq_throttled(rt_rq))
> > return;
> >
> > if (rt_rq->rt_nr_running) {
>
> The compiler can do this transformation and the old code was simpler.
>
> > @@ -1211,10 +1210,7 @@ void dec_rt_tasks(struct sched_rt_entity *rt_se,
> > struct rt_rq *rt_rq)
> > */
> > static inline bool move_entity(unsigned int flags)
> > {
> > - if ((flags & (DEQUEUE_SAVE | DEQUEUE_MOVE)) == DEQUEUE_SAVE)
> > - return false;
> > -
> > - return true;
> > + return !((flags & (DEQUEUE_SAVE | DEQUEUE_MOVE)) == DEQUEUE_SAVE)
> > }
>
> Again, I find the new code harder to read.
>
> >
> > @@ -2518,12 +2513,10 @@ static int tg_set_rt_bandwidth(struct task_group
> > *tg,
> > /*
> > * Disallowing the root group RT runtime is BAD, it would disallow the
> > * kernel creating (and or operating) RT threads.
> > + *
> > + * No period doesn't make any sense.
> > */
> > - if (tg == &root_task_group && rt_runtime == 0)
> > - return -EINVAL;
> > -
> > - /* No period doesn't make any sense. */
> > - if (rt_period == 0)
> > + if ((tg == &root_task_group && !rt_runtime) || !rt_period)
> > return -EINVAL;
> >
> > mutex_lock(&rt_constraints_mutex);
>
> Again, far harder to read.
>
> In short, while all the transformations are 'correct' the end result is
> horrible. Please don't do this.
