I noticed expensive divides done in try_to_wakeup() and
find_busiest_group() on a bi dual core Opteron machine (total of 4 cores),
moderatly loaded (15.000 context switch per second)
oprofile numbers :
CPU: AMD64 processors, speed 2600.05 MHz (estimated)
Counted CPU_CLK_UNHALTED events (Cycles outside of halt state) with a unit
mask of 0x00 (No unit mask) count 50000
samples % symbol name
...
613914 1.0498 try_to_wake_up
834 0.0013 :ffffffff80227ae1: div %rcx
77513 0.1191 :ffffffff80227ae4: mov %rax,%r11
608893 1.0413 find_busiest_group
1841 0.0031 :ffffffff802260bf: div %rdi
140109 0.2394 :ffffffff802260c2: test %sil,%sil
Some of these divides can use the reciprocal divides we introduced some
time ago (currently used in slab AFAIK)
We can assume a load will fit in a 32bits number, because with a
SCHED_LOAD_SCALE=128 value, its still a theorical limit of 33554432
When/if we reach this limit one day, probably cpus will have a fast
hardware divide and we can zap the reciprocal divide trick.
Ingo suggested to rename cpu_power to __cpu_power to make clear it should
not be modified without changing its reciprocal value too.
I did not convert the divide in cpu_avg_load_per_task(), because tracking
nr_running changes may be not worth it ? We could use a static table of 32
reciprocal values but it would add a conditional branch and table lookup.
[akpm@linux-foundation.org: !SMP build fix]
Signed-off-by: Eric Dumazet <dada1@cosmosbay.com>
Acked-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
5517d86bea