On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 06:52:02PM +0100, Patrick Bellasi wrote:
On 12-Sep 19:42, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
quoted
On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 06:35:15PM +0100, Patrick Bellasi wrote:
quoted
On 12-Sep 18:12, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
quoted
quoted
No idea; but if you want to go all fancy you can replace he whole
uclamp_map thing with something like:
struct uclamp_map {
union {
struct {
unsigned long v : 10;
unsigned long c : BITS_PER_LONG - 10;
};
atomic_long_t s;
};
};
That sounds really cool and scary at the same time :)
The v:10 requires that we never set SCHED_CAPACITY_SCALE>1024
or that we use it to track a percentage value (i.e. [0..100]).
Or we pick 11 bits, it seems unlikely that capacity be larger than 2k.
Just remembered a past experience where we had unaligned access traps
on some machine because... don't you see any potentially issue on
using bitfleds like you suggest above ?
I'm thinking to:
commit 317d359df95d ("sched/core: Force proper alignment of 'struct util_est'")
There should not be (and I'm still confused by that particular commit
you reference). If we access everything through the uclamp_map::s, and
only use the bitfields to interpret the results, it all 'works'.
The tricky thing we did earlier was trying to use u64 accesses for 2
u32 variables. And somehow ia64 didn't get the alignment right.