sched/fair: Align rq->avg_idle and rq->avg_scan_cost
sched/core.c uses update_avg() for rq->avg_idle and sched/fair.c uses an open-coded version (with the exact same decay factor) for rq->avg_scan_cost. On top of that, select_idle_cpu() expects to be able to compare these two fields. The only difference between the two is that rq->avg_scan_cost is computed using a pure division rather than a shift. Turns out it actually matters, first of all because the shifted value can be negative, and the standard has this to say about it: """ The result of E1 >> E2 is E1 right-shifted E2 bit positions. [...] If E1 has a signed type and a negative value, the resulting value is implementation-defined. """ Not only this, but (arithmetic) right shifting a negative value (using 2's complement) is *not* equivalent to dividing it by the corresponding power of 2. Let's look at a few examples: -4 -> 0xF..FC -4 >> 3 -> 0xF..FF == -1 != -4 / 8 -8 -> 0xF..F8 -8 >> 3 -> 0xF..FF == -1 == -8 / 8 -9 -> 0xF..F7 -9 >> 3 -> 0xF..FE == -2 != -9 / 8 Make update_avg() use a division, and export it to the private scheduler header to reuse it where relevant. Note that this still lets compilers use a shift here, but should prevent any unwanted surprise. The disassembly of select_idle_cpu() remains unchanged on arm64, and ttwu_do_wakeup() gains 2 instructions; the diff sort of looks like this: - sub x1, x1, x0 + subs x1, x1, x0 // set condition codes + add x0, x1, #0x7 + csel x0, x0, x1, mi // x0 = x1 < 0 ? x0 : x1 add x0, x3, x0, asr #3 which does the right thing (i.e. gives us the expected result while still using an arithmetic shift) Signed-off-by: Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@arm.com> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org> Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20200330090127.16294-1-valentin.schneider@arm.com
Showing
Please register or sign in to comment