Re: [tip:sched/core] sched: Lower chances of cputime scaling overflow

[Ingo Molnar]

* Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> 2013/4/10 Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxxxxx>:
> >
> > * Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> >> Of course 128 bits ops are very expensive, so to help you evaluating the
> >> situation, this is going to happen on every call to task_cputime_adjusted() and
> >> thread_group_adjusted(), namely:
> >
> > It's really only expensive for divisions. Addition and multiplication should be
> > straightforward and relatively low overhead, especially on 64-bit platforms.
> 
> Ok, well we still have one division in the scaling path. I'm mostly
> worried about the thread group exit that makes use of it through
> threadgroup_cputime_adjusted(). Not sure if we can avoid that.

I see, scale_stime()'s use of div64_u64_rem(), right?

I swapped out the details already, is there a link or commit ID that explains 
where we hit 64-bit multiplication overflow? It's due to accounting in nanosecs, 
spread out across thousands of tasks potentially, right?

But even with nsecs, a 64-bit variable ought to be able to hold hundreds of years 
worth of runtime. How do we overflow?

Thanks,

	Ingo
--
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/