From: Peter Zijlstra Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2015 11:49:30 +0000 (+0200) Subject: sched/fair: Clean up the explanation around decaying load update misses X-Git-Url: https://git.stricted.de/?a=commitdiff_plain;h=d937cdc59e363baf8d5c757d944b13ebfa33e729;p=GitHub%2Fmoto-9609%2Fandroid_kernel_motorola_exynos9610.git sched/fair: Clean up the explanation around decaying load update misses Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) Cc: Linus Torvalds Cc: Mike Galbraith Cc: Peter Zijlstra Cc: Thomas Gleixner Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar --- diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c index 2779dece43b2..8f3905e3b986 100644 --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c @@ -4222,42 +4222,37 @@ static void dequeue_task_fair(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *p, int flags) */ /* - * The exact cpuload at various idx values, calculated at every tick would be - * load = (2^idx - 1) / 2^idx * load + 1 / 2^idx * cur_load + * The exact cpuload calculated at every tick would be: * - * If a cpu misses updates for n-1 ticks (as it was idle) and update gets called - * on nth tick when cpu may be busy, then we have: - * load = ((2^idx - 1) / 2^idx)^(n-1) * load - * load = (2^idx - 1) / 2^idx) * load + 1 / 2^idx * cur_load + * load' = (1 - 1/2^i) * load + (1/2^i) * cur_load + * + * If a cpu misses updates for n ticks (as it was idle) and update gets + * called on the n+1-th tick when cpu may be busy, then we have: + * + * load_n = (1 - 1/2^i)^n * load_0 + * load_n+1 = (1 - 1/2^i) * load_n + (1/2^i) * cur_load * * decay_load_missed() below does efficient calculation of - * load = ((2^idx - 1) / 2^idx)^(n-1) * load - * avoiding 0..n-1 loop doing load = ((2^idx - 1) / 2^idx) * load * - * The calculation is approximated on a 128 point scale. - * degrade_zero_ticks is the number of ticks after which load at any - * particular idx is approximated to be zero. - * degrade_factor is a precomputed table, a row for each load idx. - * Each column corresponds to degradation factor for a power of two ticks, - * based on 128 point scale. - * Example: - * row 2, col 3 (=12) says that the degradation at load idx 2 after - * 8 ticks is 12/128 (which is an approximation of exact factor 3^8/4^8). + * load' = (1 - 1/2^i)^n * load + * + * Because x^(n+m) := x^n * x^m we can decompose any x^n in power-of-2 factors. + * This allows us to precompute the above in said factors, thereby allowing the + * reduction of an arbitrary n in O(log_2 n) steps. (See also + * fixed_power_int()) * - * With this power of 2 load factors, we can degrade the load n times - * by looking at 1 bits in n and doing as many mult/shift instead of - * n mult/shifts needed by the exact degradation. + * The calculation is approximated on a 128 point scale. */ #define DEGRADE_SHIFT 7 -static const unsigned char - degrade_zero_ticks[CPU_LOAD_IDX_MAX] = {0, 8, 32, 64, 128}; -static const unsigned char - degrade_factor[CPU_LOAD_IDX_MAX][DEGRADE_SHIFT + 1] = { - {0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0}, - {64, 32, 8, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0}, - {96, 72, 40, 12, 1, 0, 0}, - {112, 98, 75, 43, 15, 1, 0}, - {120, 112, 98, 76, 45, 16, 2} }; + +static const u8 degrade_zero_ticks[CPU_LOAD_IDX_MAX] = {0, 8, 32, 64, 128}; +static const u8 degrade_factor[CPU_LOAD_IDX_MAX][DEGRADE_SHIFT + 1] = { + { 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0 }, + { 64, 32, 8, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0 }, + { 96, 72, 40, 12, 1, 0, 0, 0 }, + { 112, 98, 75, 43, 15, 1, 0, 0 }, + { 120, 112, 98, 76, 45, 16, 2, 0 } +}; /* * Update cpu_load for any missed ticks, due to tickless idle. The backlog