Re: [PATCH] sched: smart wake-affine

[Michael Wang]

On 07/04/2013 05:13 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
[snip]
> 
> 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;
>   }

Hmm...interesting, some kind of cataclysm decay, not sure how it works
but yes, the cost was capped.

Well, seems like we still have many follow-up research works after fix
the issue ;-)

Regards,
Michael Wang

> 
> 
> --
> 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/
> 

--
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/