On Fri, 20 Dec 2013 22:44:13 +0100
Peter Zijlstra <pet...@infradead.org> wrote:
> @@ -5056,10 +5018,28 @@ static int sched_cpu_inactive(struct not
> switch (action & ~CPU_TASKS_FROZEN) {
> case CPU_DOWN_PREPARE:
> set_cpu_active((long)hcpu, false);
> - return NOTIFY_OK;
> - default:
> - return NOTIFY_DONE;
> + break;
> }
> +
> + switch (action) {
> + case CPU_DOWN_PREPARE: /* explicitly allow suspend */
Instead of the double switch (which is quite confusing), what about
just adding:
if (!(action & CPU_TASKS_FROZEN))
I mean, the above switch gets called for both cases, this only gets
called for the one case. This case is a subset of the above. I don't
see why an if () would not be better than a double (confusing) switch().
Also, it seems that this change also does not return NOTIFY_DONE if
something other than CPU_DOWN_PREPARE is passed in.
-- Steve
> + {
> + struct dl_bw *dl_b = dl_bw_of(cpu);
> + bool overflow;
> + int cpus;
> +
> + raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&dl_b->lock, flags);
> + cpus = dl_bw_cpus(cpu);
> + overflow = __dl_overflow(dl_b, cpus, 0, 0);
> + raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&dl_b->lock, flags);
> +
> + if (overflow)
> + return notifier_from_errno(-EBUSY);
> + }
> + break;
> + }
> +
> + return NOTIFY_OK;
> }
>
> static int __init migration_init(void)
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
