On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 11:19:19AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 05, 2016 at 12:12:30PM +0800, Yuyang Du wrote:
> > Rename scale_load() and scale_load_down() to user_to_kernel_load()
> > and kernel_to_user_load() respectively, to allow the names to bear
> > what they are really about.
>
> > --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
> > +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> > @@ -189,7 +189,7 @@ static void __update_inv_weight(struct load_weight *lw)
> > if (likely(lw->inv_weight))
> > return;
> >
> > - w = scale_load_down(lw->weight);
> > + w = kernel_to_user_load(lw->weight);
> >
> > if (BITS_PER_LONG > 32 && unlikely(w >= WMULT_CONST))
> > lw->inv_weight = 1;
> > @@ -213,7 +213,7 @@ static void __update_inv_weight(struct load_weight *lw)
> > */
> > static u64 __calc_delta(u64 delta_exec, unsigned long weight, struct
> > load_weight *lw)
> > {
> > - u64 fact = scale_load_down(weight);
> > + u64 fact = kernel_to_user_load(weight);
> > int shift = WMULT_SHIFT;
> >
> > __update_inv_weight(lw);
[snip]
> Except these 3 really are not about user/kernel visible fixed point
> ranges _at_all_... :/
But are the above two falling back to user fixed point precision? And
the reason being that we can't efficiently do this multiply/divide
thing with increased fixed point for kernel load.
