Hi Dan, Le vendredi 13 nov. 2020 à 11:46:57 (+0300), Dan Carpenter a écrit : > Hello Vincent Guittot, > > The patch b4c9c9f15649: "sched/fair: Prefer prev cpu in asymmetric > wakeup path" from Oct 29, 2020, leads to the following static checker > warning: > > kernel/sched/fair.c:6249 select_idle_sibling() > error: uninitialized symbol 'task_util'. > > kernel/sched/fair.c > 6233 static int select_idle_sibling(struct task_struct *p, int prev, int > target) > 6234 { > 6235 struct sched_domain *sd; > 6236 unsigned long task_util; > 6237 int i, recent_used_cpu; > 6238 > 6239 /* > 6240 * On asymmetric system, update task utilization because we > will check > 6241 * that the task fits with cpu's capacity. > 6242 */ > > The original comment was a bit more clear... Perhaps "On asymmetric > system[s], [record the] task utilization because we will check that the > task [can be done within] the cpu's capacity."
The comment "update task utilization because we will check ..." refers to sync_entity_load_avg() > > 6243 if (static_branch_unlikely(&sched_asym_cpucapacity)) { > 6244 sync_entity_load_avg(&p->se); > 6245 task_util = uclamp_task_util(p); > 6246 } > > "task_util" is not initialized on the else path. no need because it will not be used > > 6247 > 6248 if ((available_idle_cpu(target) || sched_idle_cpu(target)) && > 6249 asym_fits_capacity(task_util, target)) > ^^^^^^^^^ > Uninitialized variable warning. asym_fits_capacity includes the same condition as above when we set task_util so task_util can't be used unintialize static inline bool asym_fits_capacity(int task_util, int cpu) { if (static_branch_unlikely(&sched_asym_cpucapacity)) return fits_capacity(task_util, capacity_of(cpu)); return true; } > > 6250 return target; > 6251 > 6252 /* > 6253 * If the previous CPU is cache affine and idle, don't be > stupid: > 6254 */ > 6255 if (prev != target && cpus_share_cache(prev, target) && > 6256 (available_idle_cpu(prev) || sched_idle_cpu(prev)) && > 6257 asym_fits_capacity(task_util, prev)) > 6258 return prev; > 6259 > 6260 /* > 6261 * Allow a per-cpu kthread to stack with the wakee if the > > regards, > dan carpenter