[PATCH] sched/fair: Change sched_feat(x) in !CONFIG_SCHED_DEBUG case
Philipp Klocke
Phil_K97 at gmx.de
Fri Apr 20 12:29:07 EDT 2018
On 20.04.2018 09:57, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 10:54:26AM +0200, Philipp Klocke wrote:
>
>> This patch is motivated by the clang warning Wconstant-logical-operand,
>> issued when logically comparing a variable to a constant integer that is
>> neither 1 nor 0. It happens for sched_feat(x) when sysctl_sched_features
>> is constant, i.e., CONFIG_SCHED_DEBUG is not set.
>>
>> kernel/sched/fair.c:3927:14: warning: use of logical '&&' with constant operand [-Wconstant-logical-operand]
>> if (initial && sched_feat(START_DEBIT))
>> ^ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>> kernel/sched/fair.c:3927:14: note: use '&' for a bitwise operation
>> if (initial && sched_feat(START_DEBIT))
>> ^~
>> &
>> kernel/sched/fair.c:3927:14: note: remove constant to silence this warning
>> if (initial && sched_feat(START_DEBIT))
>> ~^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>> @@ -1305,7 +1305,11 @@ static const_debug __maybe_unused unsigned int sysctl_sched_features =
>> 0;
>> #undef SCHED_FEAT
>>
>> +#ifdef CONFIG_SCHED_DEBUG
>> #define sched_feat(x) (sysctl_sched_features & (1UL << __SCHED_FEAT_##x))
>> +#else
>> +#define sched_feat(x) ((sysctl_sched_features >> __SCHED_FEAT_##x) & 1UL)
>> +#endif
> So this is extra ugly, for no gain?
The gain is stopping a warning that clutters the output log of clang.
To improve readability, one can drop the ifdef-structure and just keep
the right shift version, like Nicholas suggested. This will have a (very
small)
impact on performance in CONFIG_SCHED_DEBUG case, but when
debugging, performance is no problem anyways.
> WTH does clang complain about a constant? Can't you just disable that
> stupid warning?
There are 2 ways to disable the warning. Either disable it for this
particular
occurrence, which clutters the code with #pragma's. THIS is really ugly.
Or disable it globally and maybe miss some important/helpful warnings.
> Also, if sysctl_sched_features is a constant, the both expressions
> _should_ really result in a constant and clang should still warn about
> it.
No, because clang only warns if the constant is neither 1 nor 0.
(These being the 'best' integer representations of booleans)
> I'm really not seeing why we'd want to do this. Just fix clang to not be
> stupid.
>
More information about the Kernelnewbies
mailing list