Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Mon, 14 Jan 2002 14:02:53 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Mon, 14 Jan 2002 14:01:43 -0500 Received: from gateway-1237.mvista.com ([12.44.186.158]:18673 "EHLO hermes.mvista.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Mon, 14 Jan 2002 14:01:15 -0500 Message-ID: <3C432A7C.893D139@mvista.com> Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 10:59:08 -0800 From: george anzinger Organization: Monta Vista Software X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.2.12-20b i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: owensjc@bellatlantic.net CC: "'Matti Aarnio'" , mingo@elte.hu, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: O(1) scheduler ver H6 - more straightforward timeslice macros In-Reply-To: <000001c19bb7$20756710$0100a8c0@jcowens.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org "James C. Owens" wrote: > > > -----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 If performance is important here we could eliminate the "/" thusly: #define SC 24 // Change as needed to get precision and fit in 32 bits #define SC_USER_FACTOR ((MAX_TIMESLICE-MIN_TIMESLICE)<>SC To eliminate the ">>" one could go to SC=32 and then just take the high 32-bits of the mpy. Taking the high 32-bits of mpy (which gives 64-bits) requires asm, but SC_USER_FACTOR would be: #define SC_USER_FACTOR \ (long)((long long) (MAX_TIMESLICE-MIN_TIMESLICE)<