From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1757222Ab0DOHeQ (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Thu, 15 Apr 2010 03:34:16 -0400
Received: from bombadil.infradead.org ([18.85.46.34]:41326 "EHLO
	bombadil.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1757232Ab0DOHeL (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Thu, 15 Apr 2010 03:34:11 -0400
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 02/11] sched: SCHED_DEADLINE policy implementation.
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Cc: Raistlin <raistlin@linux.it>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
       Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
       Chris Friesen <cfriesen@nortel.com>,
       Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>,
       Darren Hart <darren@dvhart.com>, Henrik Austad <henrik@austad.us>,
       Johan Eker <johan.eker@ericsson.com>, "p.faure" <p.faure@akatech.ch>,
       linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
       Claudio Scordino <claudio@evidence.eu.com>,
       michael trimarchi <trimarchi@retis.sssup.it>,
       Fabio Checconi <fabio@gandalf.sssup.it>,
       Tommaso Cucinotta <t.cucinotta@sssup.it>,
       Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@gmail.com>,
       Nicola Manica <nicola.manica@gmail.com>,
       Luca Abeni <luca.abeni@unitn.it>
In-Reply-To: <1271184954.7962.83.camel@localhost>
References: <1267383976.13676.79.camel@Palantir>
	 <1267384639.13676.87.camel@Palantir>  <1271182937.4807.1879.camel@twins>
	 <1271184954.7962.83.camel@localhost>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2010 09:34:06 +0200
Message-ID: <1271316846.32749.60.camel@laptop>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Evolution 2.28.3 
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Tue, 2010-04-13 at 14:55 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-04-13 at 20:22 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Sun, 2010-02-28 at 20:17 +0100, Raistlin wrote:
> > > +/*
> > > + * Here we check if --at time t-- a task (which is probably being
> > > + * [re]activated or, in general, enqueued) can use its remaining runtime
> > > + * and its current deadline _without_ exceeding the bandwidth it is
> > > + * assigned (function returns true if it can).
> > > + *
> > > + * For this to hold, we must check if:
> > > + *   runtime / (deadline - t) < dl_runtime / dl_deadline .
> > > + */
> > > +static bool dl_check_bandwidth(struct sched_dl_entity *dl_se, u64 t)
> > > +{
> > > +       u64 left, right;
> > > +
> > > +       /*
> > > +        * left and right are the two sides of the equation above,
> > > +        * after a bit of shuffling to use multiplications instead
> > > +        * of divisions.
> > > +        */
> > > +       left = dl_se->dl_deadline * dl_se->runtime;
> > > +       right = (dl_se->deadline - t) * dl_se->dl_runtime;
> > > +
> > > +       return dl_time_before(left, right);
> > > +} 
> > 
> > So what happens when we overflow u64?
> 
> Is the resolution in nanosecs starting from zero? If so, then we don't
> need to worry about overflow for 583 years? And that is only if the
> difference in time is greater than 292 years since dl_time_before() does
> a:
> 
>   (s64)(a - b) < 0
> 
> The (s64)(a - b) returns the difference even on overflow as long as the
> difference is not greater than 2^63

Its a multiplication of two u64, that's a lot easier to overflow.