linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/4] sched/fair: Optimize sum computation with a lookup table

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

Message-ID: <20160413091101.GF5609@e106622-lin>
Date:	Wed, 13 Apr 2016 10:11:01 +0100
From:	Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@....com>
To:	Yuyang Du <yuyang.du@...el.com>
Cc:	peterz@...radead.org, mingo@...nel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, bsegall@...gle.com, pjt@...gle.com,
	morten.rasmussen@....com, vincent.guittot@...aro.org,
	dietmar.eggemann@....com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] sched/fair: Optimize sum computation with a lookup
 table

On 13/04/16 02:07, Yuyang Du wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 11:14:13AM +0100, Juri Lelli wrote:
> > On 12/04/16 03:12, Yuyang Du wrote:
> > > On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 11:41:28AM +0100, Juri Lelli wrote:
> > > > Hi,
> > > > 
> > > > On 11/04/16 06:36, Yuyang Du wrote:
> > > > > __compute_runnable_contrib() uses a loop to compute sum, whereas a
> > > > > table loopup can do it faster in a constant time.
> > > > > 
> > > > > The following python script can be used to generate the constants:
> > > > > 
> > > > > print " #:     yN_inv   yN_sum"
> > > > > print "-----------------------"
> > > > > y = (0.5)**(1/32.0)
> > > > > x = 2**32
> > > > > xx = 1024
> > > > > for i in range(0, 32):
> > > > > 	if i == 0:
> > > > > 		x = x-1
> > > > > 		xx = xx*y
> > > > > 	else:
> > > > > 		x = x*y
> > > > > 		xx = int(xx*y + 1024*y)
> > > > > 	print "%2d: %#x %8d" % (i, int(x), int(xx))
> > > > > 
> > > > > print " #:  sum_N32"
> > > > > print "------------"
> > > > > xxx = xx
> > > > > for i in range(0, 11):
> > > > > 	if i == 0:
> > > > > 		xxx = xx
> > > > > 	else:
> > > > > 		xxx = xxx/2 + xx
> > > > > 	print "%2d: %8d" % (i, xxx)
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Thanks for the script, really useful. Do you think there is value in
> > > > making it general? Like if we want to play with/need changing LOAD_AVG_
> > > > PERIOD in the future to something different than 32.
> > > 
> > > i think a s/32/xx/ should work.
> > >  
> > > > Also, does the following assume LOAD_AVG_PERIOD == 32? And if yes, do
> > > > you think there is any value in removing that assumption?
> > >  
> > > Like Peter said, we are heavily dependent on it already.
> > 
> > But I think the current code should still work if we define LOAD_AVG_
> > PERIOD as, say, 16 and we use Paul's program to recompute the tables.
> > 
> > My point was about trying to keep everything related to LOAD_AVG_PERIOD
> > and not start assuming it is 32. I'm not saying your changes assume
> > that, I was asking if they do.
> 
> Oh, then my changes do not make more or less dependency. The entire avg thing
> should only have two seeds (and all others depend on them):
> 
> (1) a period is 1024*1024ns

Which I think is fine.

> (2) a half-life is 32 periods
> 

And this is fine as well, but only if we can actually write

 (2) a half-life is LOAD_AVG_PERIOD periods

Best,

- Juri

> I'll check if there is anything hard-coded other than the two.
>