Re: [PATCH] sched: smart wake-affine

[Peter Zijlstra]

On Tue, Jul 02, 2013 at 05:35:33PM +0800, Michael Wang wrote:
> >> +	if (jiffies > current->last_switch_decay + HZ) {
> >> +		current->nr_wakee_switch = 0;
> >> +		current->last_switch_decay = jiffies;
> >> +	}
> > 
> > This isn't so much a decay as it is wiping state. Did you try an actual
> > decay -- something like: current->nr_wakee_switch >>= 1; ?
> > 
> > I suppose you wanted to avoid something like:
> > 
> >   now = jiffies;
> >   while (now > current->last_switch_decay + HZ) {
> >   	current->nr_wakee_switch >>= 1;
> > 	current->last_switch_decay += HZ;
> >   }
> 
> Right, actually I have though about the decay problem with some testing,
> including some similar implementations like this, but one issue I could
> not solve is:
> 
> 	the task waken up after dequeue 10secs and the task waken up
> 	after dequeue 1sec will suffer the same decay.
>
> Thus, in order to keep fair, we have to do some calculation here to make
> the decay correct, but that means cost...

Right, but something like the below is limited in cost to at most 32/64 (I
forgot the type) shifts. Now its probably not worth doing, but it shows
things like that can be done in 'constant' time.

  now = jiffies;
  if (now - p->last_switch_decay > 8*sizeof(p->nr_wakee_switch)*HZ) {
	p->nr_wakee_switch = 0;
	p->last_switch_decay = now;
  } else while (now > p->last_switch_decay + HZ) {
	p->nr_wakee_switch >>= 1;
	p->last_switch_decay += HZ;
  }


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/