[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAFTL4hxsTMZhNqC9jkrc5L3zEr-KFhxvwHqk+q=0zRn6wraWSg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2013 17:28:55 +0200
From: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
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
2013/4/10 Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>:
>
> * 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.
Ok, well we still have one division in the scaling path. I'm mostly
worried about the thread group exit that makes use of it through
threadgroup_cputime_adjusted(). Not sure if we can avoid that.
--
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