On Mon, Nov 11, 2024 at 11:53:45AM +0100, Uladzislau Rezki wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 11, 2024 at 03:24:38PM +0530, Neeraj Upadhyay wrote:
> >
> > > diff --git a/kernel/rcu/rcuscale.c b/kernel/rcu/rcuscale.c
> > > index 6d37596deb1f..de7d511e6be4 100644
> > > --- a/kernel/rcu/rcuscale.c
> > > +++ b/kernel/rcu/rcuscale.c
> > > @@ -890,13 +890,13 @@ kfree_scale_init(void)
> > > if (WARN_ON_ONCE(jiffies_at_lazy_cb - jif_start < 2 * HZ)) {
> > > pr_alert("ERROR: call_rcu() CBs are not being lazy as
> > > expected!\n");
> > > WARN_ON_ONCE(1);
> > > - return -1;
> > > + goto unwind;
> >
> > Do we need to set firsterr = -1 here before "goto unwind"? Otherwise, 0
> > is returned from kfree_scale_init().
> >
> > > }
> > >
> > > if (WARN_ON_ONCE(jiffies_at_lazy_cb - jif_start > 3 * HZ)) {
> > > pr_alert("ERROR: call_rcu() CBs are being too lazy!\n");
> > > WARN_ON_ONCE(1);
> > > - return -1;
> > > + goto unwind;
> >
> > Ditto
> >
> Let me check it!
>
Right you are. I will repost the patch to be align with a previous behaviour.
Thanks!
--
Uladzislau Rezki
