lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [Apr]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
Patch in this message
/
SubjectRe: [tip:sched/core] sched: Lower chances of cputime scaling overflow
From
Date
On Tue, 2013-03-26 at 15:01 +0100, Stanislaw Gruszka wrote:
> Thoughts?

Would something like the below work?

(warning: it's never even been near a compiler)

---
kernel/sched/cputime.c | 78 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------------
1 file changed, 55 insertions(+), 23 deletions(-)

diff --git a/kernel/sched/cputime.c b/kernel/sched/cputime.c
index 699d597..465f6db 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/cputime.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/cputime.c
@@ -522,35 +522,67 @@ void account_idle_ticks(unsigned long ticks)
}

/*
- * Perform (stime * rtime) / total with reduced chances
- * of multiplication overflows by using smaller factors
- * like quotient and remainders of divisions between
- * rtime and total.
+ * Perform: (stime * rtime) / total
*/
static cputime_t scale_stime(u64 stime, u64 rtime, u64 total)
{
- u64 rem, res, scaled;
+ int stime_fls = fls64(stime);
+ int total_fls = fls64(total);
+ int rtime_fls = fls64(rtime);
+ int shift, res_fls;
+ u32 rtime_hi = rtime >> 32, rtime_lo = rtime;
+ u64 hi, lo, t;

- if (rtime >= total) {
- /*
- * Scale up to rtime / total then add
- * the remainder scaled to stime / total.
- */
- res = div64_u64_rem(rtime, total, &rem);
- scaled = stime * res;
- scaled += div64_u64(stime * rem, total);
- } else {
- /*
- * Same in reverse: scale down to total / rtime
- * then substract that result scaled to
- * to the remaining part.
- */
- res = div64_u64_rem(total, rtime, &rem);
- scaled = div64_u64(stime, res);
- scaled -= div64_u64(scaled * rem, total);
+ /*
+ * Since the stime:utime ratio is already an approximation through
+ * the sampling, reducing its resolution isn't too big a deal.
+ * And since total = stime+utime; the total_fls will be the biggest
+ * of the two;
+ */
+ if (total_fls > 32) {
+ shift = total_fls - 32; /* a = 2^shift */
+ stime >>= shift;
+ total >>= shift;
+ stime_fls -= shift;
+ total_fls -= shift;
+ }
+
+ /*
+ * Since we limited stime to 32bits the multiplication reduced to 96bit.
+ * stime * rtime = stime * (rl + rh * 2^32) =
+ * stime * rl + stime * rh * 2^32
+ */
+ lo = stime * rtime_lo;
+ hi = stime * rtime_hi;
+ t = hi << 32;
+ lo += t;
+ if (lo < t) /* overflow */
+ hi += 0x100000000L;
+ hi >>= 32;
+
+ /*
+ * Pick the 64 most significant bits for division into @lo.
+ *
+ * NOTE: res_fls is an approximation (upper-bound) do we want to
+ * properly calculate?
+ */
+ shift = 0;
+ res_fls = stime_fls + rtime_fls;
+ if (res_fls > 64) {
+ shift = res_fls - 64; /* b = 2^shift */
+ lo >>= shift;
+ hi <<= 64 - shift;
+ lo |= hi;
}

- return (__force cputime_t) scaled;
+ /*
+ * So here we do:
+ *
+ * ((stime / a) * rtime / b)
+ * --------------------------- / b
+ * (total / a)
+ */
+ return div_u64(lo, total) >> shift;
}

/*



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2013-04-11 16:21    [W:1.104 / U:0.332 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site