From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched: prevent compiler from optimising sched_avg_update loop
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2010 19:08:02 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1269367682.5109.155.camel@twins> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1269365805-17280-1-git-send-email-will.deacon@arm.com>
On Tue, 2010-03-23 at 17:36 +0000, Will Deacon wrote:
> GCC 4.4.1 on ARM has been observed to replace the while loop
> in sched_avg_update with a call to uldivmod, resulting in the
> following build failure at link-time:
>
> kernel/built-in.o: In function `sched_avg_update':
> /linux-2.6/kernel/sched.c:1261: undefined reference to `__aeabi_uldivmod'
> /linux-2.6/kernel/sched.c:1261: undefined reference to `__aeabi_uldivmod'
> make: *** [.tmp_vmlinux1] Error 1
>
> This patch [taken against 2.6.34-rc2] replaces the loop with a call to
> div_s64 which allows the Kernel to link.
>
> Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
> Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
> Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
> Signed-off-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
> ---
> kernel/sched.c | 7 +++----
> 1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/sched.c b/kernel/sched.c
> index 9ab3cd7..6b74f21 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched.c
> @@ -1238,11 +1238,10 @@ static u64 sched_avg_period(void)
> static void sched_avg_update(struct rq *rq)
> {
> s64 period = sched_avg_period();
> + s64 elapsed_periods = div_s64(rq->clock - rq->age_stamp - 1, period);
>
> - while ((s64)(rq->clock - rq->age_stamp) > period) {
> - rq->age_stamp += period;
> - rq->rt_avg /= 2;
> - }
> + rq->age_stamp += (u64)(elapsed_periods * period);
> + rq->rt_avg >>= elapsed_periods;
> }
Hmm, and that does an unconditional division, thing is, I don't expect
(under normal circumstances) for that loop to go round more than once so
that division will hurt for no reason.
Should we maybe write it like so:
if ((s64)(rq->clock - rq->age_stamp) > period) {
rq->age_stamp += period;
rq->rt_avg >>= 1;
}
if (unlikely((s64)(rq->clock - rq->age_stamp) > period)) {
s64 overflows = div_s64(rq->clocks - rq->age_stamp, period);
int width = sizeof(rq->rt_avg) * 8;
rq->age_stamp += overflows * period;
if (unlikely(overflows >= width))
rq->rt_avg = 0;
else
rq->rt_avg >>= overflows;
}
?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-03-23 18:08 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-03-23 17:36 [PATCH] sched: prevent compiler from optimising sched_avg_update loop Will Deacon
2010-03-23 17:53 ` Eric Dumazet
[not found] ` <000101cacab3$25af90a0$710eb1e0$@deacon@arm.com>
2010-03-23 18:10 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-03-23 18:08 ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2010-03-23 19:05 ` Will Deacon
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=1269367682.5109.155.camel@twins \
--to=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=will.deacon@arm.com \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox