This reverts commit 77baa5bafcbe1b2a15ef9c37232c21279c95481c.

After commit b29a62d87cc0 ("mul_u64_u64_div_u64: make it precise always")
it is no longer necessary to have this workaround.

Signed-off-by: Nicolas Pitre <npitre@baylibre.com>
---
 kernel/sched/cputime.c | 6 ------
 1 file changed, 6 deletions(-)

diff --git a/kernel/sched/cputime.c b/kernel/sched/cputime.c
index 0bed0fa1ac..a5e00293ae 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/cputime.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/cputime.c
@@ -582,12 +582,6 @@ void cputime_adjust(struct task_cputime *curr, struct prev_cputime *prev,
 	}
 
 	stime = mul_u64_u64_div_u64(stime, rtime, stime + utime);
-	/*
-	 * Because mul_u64_u64_div_u64() can approximate on some
-	 * achitectures; enforce the constraint that: a*b/(b+c) <= a.
-	 */
-	if (unlikely(stime > rtime))
-		stime = rtime;
 
 update:
 	/*
-- 
2.46.1

Hello,

On Fri, Oct 04, 2024 at 08:19:54PM -0400, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> This reverts commit 77baa5bafcbe1b2a15ef9c37232c21279c95481c.
> 
> After commit b29a62d87cc0 ("mul_u64_u64_div_u64: make it precise always")
> it is no longer necessary to have this workaround.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Nicolas Pitre <npitre@baylibre.com>
> ---
>  kernel/sched/cputime.c | 6 ------
>  1 file changed, 6 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/cputime.c b/kernel/sched/cputime.c
> index 0bed0fa1ac..a5e00293ae 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/cputime.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/cputime.c
> @@ -582,12 +582,6 @@ void cputime_adjust(struct task_cputime *curr, struct prev_cputime *prev,
>  	}
>  
>  	stime = mul_u64_u64_div_u64(stime, rtime, stime + utime);
> -	/*
> -	 * Because mul_u64_u64_div_u64() can approximate on some
> -	 * achitectures; enforce the constraint that: a*b/(b+c) <= a.
> -	 */
> -	if (unlikely(stime > rtime))
> -		stime = rtime;

I didn't look in detail, but even with mul_u64_u64_div_u64() being exact
now, stime > rtime can still be hit if stime + utime overflows. Can this
happen? (Can stime + utime become 0?)

The example from the commit log of 77baa5bafcbe ("sched/cputime: Fix
mul_u64_u64_div_u64() precision for cputime") however won't occur any
more. IMHO that is good enough to justify this patch.

Acked-by: Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@baylibre.com>

Thanks for following up your improvement to mul_u64_u64_div_u64() with
this change.

Best regards
Uwe