On Tue, Sep 29, 2020 at 11:56:42AM +0200, Dietmar Eggemann wrote: > On 25/09/2020 21:10, Hui Su wrote: > > Macro for_each_leaf_cfs_rq_safe() use list_for_each_entry_safe(), > > which can against removal of list entry, but we only > > print the cfs_rq data and won't remove the list entry in > > print_cfs_stats(). > > > > Thus, add macro for_each_leaf_cfs_rq() based on > > list_for_each_entry(), and use for_each_leaf_cfs_rq() in > > print_cfs_stats(). > > > > Signed-off-by: Hui Su <[email protected]> > > --- > > kernel/sched/fair.c | 11 ++++++++--- > > 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c > > index 1a68a0536add..d40dfb4349b0 100644 > > --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c > > +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c > > @@ -391,11 +391,16 @@ static inline void assert_list_leaf_cfs_rq(struct rq > > *rq) > > SCHED_WARN_ON(rq->tmp_alone_branch != &rq->leaf_cfs_rq_list); > > } > > > > -/* Iterate thr' all leaf cfs_rq's on a runqueue */ > > +/* Iterate thr' all leaf cfs_rq's on a runqueue safely */ > > #define for_each_leaf_cfs_rq_safe(rq, cfs_rq, pos) \ > > list_for_each_entry_safe(cfs_rq, pos, &rq->leaf_cfs_rq_list, \ > > leaf_cfs_rq_list) > > > > +/* Iterate thr' all leaf cfs_rq's on a runqueue */ > > +#define for_each_leaf_cfs_rq(rq, cfs_rq) \ > > + list_for_each_entry(cfs_rq, &rq->leaf_cfs_rq_list, \ > > + leaf_cfs_rq_list) > > + > > /* Do the two (enqueued) entities belong to the same group ? */ > > static inline struct cfs_rq * > > is_same_group(struct sched_entity *se, struct sched_entity *pse) > > @@ -11185,10 +11190,10 @@ const struct sched_class fair_sched_class > > #ifdef CONFIG_SCHED_DEBUG > > void print_cfs_stats(struct seq_file *m, int cpu) > > { > > - struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq, *pos; > > + struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq; > > > > rcu_read_lock(); > > - for_each_leaf_cfs_rq_safe(cpu_rq(cpu), cfs_rq, pos) > > + for_each_leaf_cfs_rq(cpu_rq(cpu), cfs_rq) > > print_cfs_rq(m, cpu, cfs_rq); > > rcu_read_unlock(); > > } > > IMHO, for_each_leaf_cfs_rq_safe() was introduced in commit a9e7f6544b9c > ("sched/fair: Fix O(nr_cgroups) in load balance path") and reintroduced > again by commit 039ae8bcf7a5 ("sched/fair: Fix O(nr_cgroups) in the load > balancing path") to prevent races between tasks running > print_cfs_stats() and today's __update_blocked_fair() -> > list_del_leaf_cfs_rq(cfs_rq). > > Your patch doesn't compile w/ !CONFIG_FAIR_GROUP_SCHED.
Thanks for your explanation, please ignore this change.

