On 12-Sep 19:42, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 06:35:15PM +0100, Patrick Bellasi wrote:
> > On 12-Sep 18:12, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> > > 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'")
--
#include <best/regards.h>
Patrick Bellasi
