+0
−6
+2
−5
+6
−0
Loading
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