linux-kernel - Re: [patch] sched: avoid div in rebalance

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20070113064618.GA30425@wotan.suse.de>
Date:	Sat, 13 Jan 2007 07:46:18 +0100
From:	Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>
To:	Alan <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [patch] sched: avoid div in rebalance_tick

On Fri, Jan 12, 2007 at 09:59:40AM +0000, Alan wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Jan 2007 07:02:13 +0100
> Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de> wrote:
> 
> > Just noticed this while looking at a bug.
> > Avoid an expensive integer divide 3 times per CPU per tick.
> 
> Integer divide is cheap on some modern processors, and multibit shift
> isn't on all embedded ones.
> 
> How about putting back scale = 1 and using
> 
> scale += scale;
> 
> instead of the shift and getting what ought to be even better results

OK, how about this? It only works out to be around 0.01% of my P3's CPU time
at 1000HZ, but it also did make the x86 code 16 bytes smaller.


--
Avoid expensive integer divide 3 times per CPU per tick.

A userspace test of this loop went from 26ns, down to 19ns on a G5; and
from 123ns down to 28ns on a P3.

(Also avoid a variable bit shift, as suggested by Alan. The effect
of this wasn't noticable on the CPUs I tested with).

Signed-off-by: Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>

Index: linux-2.6/kernel/sched.c
===================================================================
--- linux-2.6.orig/kernel/sched.c
+++ linux-2.6/kernel/sched.c
@@ -2887,14 +2887,16 @@ static void active_load_balance(struct r
 static void update_load(struct rq *this_rq)
 {
 	unsigned long this_load;
-	int i, scale;
+	unsigned int i, scale;
 
 	this_load = this_rq->raw_weighted_load;
 
 	/* Update our load: */
-	for (i = 0, scale = 1; i < 3; i++, scale <<= 1) {
+	for (i = 0, scale = 1; i < 3; i++, scale += scale) {
 		unsigned long old_load, new_load;
 
+		/* scale is effectively 1 << i now, and >> i divides by scale */
+
 		old_load = this_rq->cpu_load[i];
 		new_load = this_load;
 		/*
@@ -2904,7 +2906,7 @@ static void update_load(struct rq *this_
 		 */
 		if (new_load > old_load)
 			new_load += scale-1;
-		this_rq->cpu_load[i] = (old_load*(scale-1) + new_load) / scale;
+		this_rq->cpu_load[i] = (old_load*(scale-1) + new_load) >> i;
 	}
 }
 
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/