[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <51D5428D.7080805@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 04 Jul 2013 17:38:21 +0800
From: Michael Wang <wangyun@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
CC: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
Alex Shi <alex.shi@...el.com>,
Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Nikunj A. Dadhania" <nikunj@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Ram Pai <linuxram@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched: smart wake-affine
On 07/04/2013 05:13 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
[snip]
>
> Right, but something like the below is limited in cost to at most 32/64 (I
> forgot the type) shifts. Now its probably not worth doing, but it shows
> things like that can be done in 'constant' time.
>
> now = jiffies;
> if (now - p->last_switch_decay > 8*sizeof(p->nr_wakee_switch)*HZ) {
> p->nr_wakee_switch = 0;
> p->last_switch_decay = now;
> } else while (now > p->last_switch_decay + HZ) {
> p->nr_wakee_switch >>= 1;
> p->last_switch_decay += HZ;
> }
Hmm...interesting, some kind of cataclysm decay, not sure how it works
but yes, the cost was capped.
Well, seems like we still have many follow-up research works after fix
the issue ;-)
Regards,
Michael Wang
>
>
> --
> 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/
>
--
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