Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sat, 12 Jan 2002 17:19:26 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sat, 12 Jan 2002 17:19:16 -0500 Received: from [206.46.170.237] ([206.46.170.237]:12419 "EHLO pop010pub.verizon.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Sat, 12 Jan 2002 17:19:12 -0500 Reply-To: From: "James C. Owens" To: "'Matti Aarnio'" Cc: , Subject: Re: O(1) scheduler ver H6 - more straightforward timeslice macros Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2002 17:18:50 -0500 Message-ID: <000001c19bb7$20756710$0100a8c0@jcowens.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0 In-Reply-To: <20020112235945.G1914@mea-ext.zmailer.org> Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > -----Original Message----- > From: Matti Aarnio [mailto:matti.aarnio@zmailer.org] > Sent: Saturday, January 12, 2002 5:00 PM > To: James C. Owens > Cc: mingo@elte.hu; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > Subject: Re: O(1) scheduler ver H6 - more straightforward timeslice > macros > > > On Sat, Jan 12, 2002 at 02:16:08PM -0500, James C. Owens wrote: > > Ingo, > > > > I like the new scheduler. It seems like the timeslice > macros in sched.h > > could be more straighforward - i.e. instead of > > (I quote too much, but to illustriate the point...) > > > #define PRIO_TO_TIMESLICE(p) \ > > ((( > (MAX_USER_PRIO-1-USER_PRIO(p))*(MAX_TIMESLICE-MIN_TIMESLICE) + \ > > MAX_USER_PRIO-1) / MAX_USER_PRIO) + MIN_TIMESLICE) > > > > #define RT_PRIO_TO_TIMESLICE(p) \ > > ((( (MAX_RT_PRIO-(p)-1)*(MAX_TIMESLICE-MIN_TIMESLICE) + \ > > MAX_RT_PRIO-1) / MAX_RT_PRIO) + MIN_TIMESLICE) > > > > why not > > > > #define PRIO_TO_TIMESLICE(p) \ > > (MAX_TIMESLICE - > > (USER_PRIO(p)/(MAX_USER_PRIO-1))*(MAX_TIMESLICE-MIN_TIMESLICE)) > > > > #define RT_PRIO_TO_TIMESLICE(p) \ > > (MAX_TIMESLICE - > (p/(MAX_RT_PRIO-1))*(MAX_TIMESLICE-MIN_TIMESLICE)) > > > > > > The second way seems simpler to me, and really illustrates > what you are > > doing in a more straightforward manner. > > Except that the math is INTEGER, not floating-point, > which means that this way you loose precission. > > You HAVE TO do multiplications first, only then (finally) > the division. > > Depending the value-spaces, small-enough value-spaces might be > turnable into table mappings. However that has lots of > dependencies > in hardware architecture, e.g. memory access speeds, cache > pollution, > speed of multiply/divide operations, etc. > > If dividers/multipliers are constants, and powers of two, the math > can happen with constant shifts, which are fast at all systems. > If not, things get rather complicated. (And thus a careless -1, > or lack of one, may be costly.) > [snip] > /Matti Aarnio > Point well made. How about #define PRIO_TO_TIMESLICE(p) \ (MAX_TIMESLICE - ((USER_PRIO(p)*(MAX_TIMESLICE-MIN_TIMESLICE))/(MAX_USER_PRIO-1))) #define RT_PRIO_TO_TIMESLICE(p) \ (MAX_TIMESLICE - ((p*(MAX_TIMESLICE-MIN_TIMESLICE))/(MAX_RT_PRIO-1))) If people agree with this, I'll submit a new diff (with the right options). Jim Owens - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/