[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130410125111.GA12923@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2013 14:51:11 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
Cc: Stanislaw Gruszka <sgruszka@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, hpa@...or.com, rostedt@...dmis.org,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
linux-tip-commits@...r.kernel.org,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [tip:sched/core] sched: Lower chances of cputime scaling overflow
* Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com> wrote:
> Of course 128 bits ops are very expensive, so to help you evaluating the
> situation, this is going to happen on every call to task_cputime_adjusted() and
> thread_group_adjusted(), namely:
It's really only expensive for divisions. Addition and multiplication should be
straightforward and relatively low overhead, especially on 64-bit platforms.
Thanks,
Ingo
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists