From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: Andrew Fox <afox@redhat.com>,
Stephen Johnston <sjohnsto@redhat.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/cputime: make scale_stime() more precise
Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2019 16:55:49 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190718145549.GA22902@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190718131834.GA22211@redhat.com>
On 07/18, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
> + * NOTE! currently the only user is cputime_adjust() and thus
> + *
> + * stime < total && rtime > total
> + *
> + * this means that the end result is always precise and the additional
> + * div64_u64_rem() inside the main loop is called at most once.
Ah, I just noticed that the comment is not 100% correct... in theory we
can drop the precision and even do div64_u64_rem() more than once, but this
can only happen if stime or total = stime + utime is "really" huge, I don't
think this can happen in practice...
We can probably just do
static u64 scale_stime(u64 stime, u64 rtime, u64 total)
{
u64 res = 0, div, rem;
if (ilog2(stime) + ilog2(rtime) > 62) {
div = div64_u64_rem(rtime, total, &rem);
res += div * stime;
rtime = rem;
int shift = ilog2(stime) + ilog2(rtime) - 62;
if (shift > 0) {
rtime >>= shift;
total >>= shitt;
if (!total)
return res;
}
}
return res + div64_u64(stime * rtime, total);
}
but this way the code looks less generic.
Oleg.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-07-18 14:55 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 30+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-07-18 13:18 [PATCH] sched/cputime: make scale_stime() more precise Oleg Nesterov
2019-07-18 13:21 ` Oleg Nesterov
2019-07-18 14:55 ` Oleg Nesterov [this message]
2019-07-19 11:03 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-07-19 13:47 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-07-19 14:37 ` Oleg Nesterov
2019-07-22 19:56 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-07-23 14:00 ` Oleg Nesterov
2019-07-23 14:29 ` Oleg Nesterov
2019-07-19 14:03 ` Oleg Nesterov
2019-07-22 19:45 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-07-22 10:52 ` Stanislaw Gruszka
2019-07-22 20:00 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-07-23 9:37 ` Stanislaw Gruszka
2020-01-22 16:46 ` Oleg Nesterov
2020-01-23 13:05 ` Oleg Nesterov
2020-01-24 15:42 ` Oleg Nesterov
2020-01-27 12:28 ` [PATCH v2] " Oleg Nesterov
2020-05-15 17:24 ` Oleg Nesterov
2020-05-19 17:25 ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-05-19 18:33 ` Linus Torvalds
2020-05-19 18:42 ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-05-19 19:11 ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-05-19 19:51 ` Linus Torvalds
2020-05-20 15:24 ` Oleg Nesterov
2020-05-20 15:36 ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-05-20 20:10 ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-05-21 13:26 ` Oleg Nesterov
2020-06-16 12:21 ` [tip: sched/core] sched/cputime: Improve cputime_adjust() tip-bot2 for Oleg Nesterov
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2019-07-18 13:15 [PATCH] sched/cputime: make scale_stime() more precise Oleg Nesterov
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20190718145549.GA22902@redhat.com \
--to=oleg@redhat.com \
--cc=afox@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=sjohnsto@redhat.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.