lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2023]   [Mar]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 06/10] sched/fair: Add avg_vruntime
On 2023-03-06 at 14:25:27 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
[...]
>
> +/*
> + * Compute virtual time from the per-task service numbers:
> + *
> + * Fair schedulers conserve lag: \Sum lag_i = 0
> + *
> + * lag_i = S - s_i = w_i * (V - v_i)
> + *
The definination of above lag_i seems to be inconsistent with the defininatin
of se->lag in PATCH 8. Maybe rename lag_i to something other to avoid confusion?
> + * \Sum lag_i = 0 -> \Sum w_i * (V - v_i) = V * \Sum w_i - \Sum w_i * v_i = 0
> + *
> + * From which we solve V:
> + *
> + * \Sum v_i * w_i
> + * V = --------------
> + * \Sum w_i
> + *
> + * However, since v_i is u64, and the multiplcation could easily overflow
> + * transform it into a relative form that uses smaller quantities:
> + *
> + * Substitute: v_i == (v_i - v) + v
> + *
> + * \Sum ((v_i - v) + v) * w_i \Sum (v_i - v) * w_i
> + * V = -------------------------- = -------------------- + v
> + * \Sum w_i \Sum w_i
> + *
> + *
Not sure if I understand it correctly, does it mean (v_i - v) * w_i will not
overflow? If the weight of task is 15 (nice 19), then if v_i - v > (S64_MAX / 15)
it gets overflow. Is it possible that v_i is much larger than cfs_rq->min_vruntime
in this case?

thanks,
Chenyu

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2023-03-27 01:11    [W:2.564 / U:0.032 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site