Re: [PATCH 05/16] sched: SCHED_DEADLINE policy implementation.

From: Tommaso Cucinotta
Date: Mon Apr 23 2012 - 17:55:15 EST

Il 23/04/2012 12:55, Peter Zijlstra ha scritto:
On Fri, 2012-04-06 at 09:14 +0200, Juri Lelli wrote:
+ * Here we check if --at time t-- an entity (which is probably being
+ * [re]activated or, in general, enqueued) can use its remaining runtime
+ * and its current deadline _without_ exceeding the bandwidth it is
+ * assigned (function returns true if it can).
+ *
+ * For this to hold, we must check if:
+ * runtime / (deadline - t)< dl_runtime / dl_deadline .
It might be good to put a few words in as to why that is.. I know I
always forget (but know where to find it by now), also might be good to
refer those papers Tommaso listed when Steven asked this a while back.

+ */
+static bool dl_entity_overflow(struct sched_dl_entity *dl_se, u64 t)
+ u64 left, right;
+ /*
+ * left and right are the two sides of the equation above,
+ * after a bit of shuffling to use multiplications instead
+ * of divisions.
+ *
+ * Note that none of the time values involved in the two
+ * multiplications are absolute: dl_deadline and dl_runtime
+ * are the relative deadline and the maximum runtime of each
+ * instance, runtime is the runtime left for the last instance
+ * and (deadline - t), since t is rq->clock, is the time left
+ * to the (absolute) deadline. Therefore, overflowing the u64
+ * type is very unlikely to occur in both cases.
+ */
+ left = dl_se->dl_deadline * dl_se->runtime;
+ right = (dl_se->deadline - t) * dl_se->dl_runtime;

From what I can see there are no constraints on the values in
__setparam_dl() so the above left term can be constructed to be an

Ideally we'd use u128 here, but I don't think people will let us :/

why not write this straight in asm, i.e., multiply 64*64 then divide by 64 keeping the intermediate result on 128 bits?
Something straightforward to write in asm, but not that easy to let gcc understand that I don't want to multiply 128*128 :-).... a few years ago I had a similar issue; perhaps it was a 32/64 version of this problem, and gcc was not optimizing properly the C code with -O3, so I had used asm segments.
In this case, if avoiding the division is a major requirement, then we could multiply twice 64*64 in asm, then compare the two results on 128 bits ? Again, a few assembly lines on architectures supporting the 64*64 and 128-bits comparison.


Tommaso Cucinotta, Computer Engineering PhD, Researcher
ReTiS Lab, Scuola Superiore Sant'Anna, Pisa, Italy
Tel +39 050 882 024, Fax +39 050 882 003

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at