Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] sched/fair: Fix negative energy delta in find_energy_efficient_cpu()

[Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>]

On 29/04/2021 12:19, Pierre.Gondois@arm.com wrote:
> From: Pierre Gondois <Pierre.Gondois@arm.com>

[...]

> @@ -6680,25 +6686,23 @@ static int find_energy_efficient_cpu(struct task_struct *p, int prev_cpu)
>  			}
>  		}
>  	}
> -unlock:
> +

No need for empty line.

>  	rcu_read_unlock();
>  
>  	/*
>  	 * Pick the best CPU if prev_cpu cannot be used, or if it saves at
>  	 * least 6% of the energy used by prev_cpu.
>  	 */
> -	if (prev_delta == ULONG_MAX)
> -		return best_energy_cpu;
> -
> -	if ((prev_delta - best_delta) > ((prev_delta + base_energy) >> 4))
> -		return best_energy_cpu;
> +	if ((prev_delta == ULONG_MAX) ||
> +		(prev_delta - best_delta) > ((prev_delta + base_energy) >> 4))
> +		target = best_energy_cpu;

       if ((prev_delta == ULONG_MAX) ||
-               (prev_delta - best_delta) > ((prev_delta + base_energy) >> 4))
+           (prev_delta - best_delta) > ((prev_delta + base_energy) >> 4))
                target = best_energy_cpu;

IMHO, using whitespaces to align both sub-conditions here makes it more
readable. Especially since braces aren't required around single
statements with a condition spanning over multiple lines.

[...]

With these minor things sorted:

Reviewed-by: Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>