Re: O(1) scheduler ver H6 - more straightforward timeslice macros

[george anzinger]

"James C. Owens" wrote:
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Matti Aarnio [mailto:[e-mail]]
> > Sent: Saturday, January 12, 2002 5:00 PM
> > To: James C. Owens
> > Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> > Subject: Re: O(1) scheduler ver H6 - more straightforward timeslice
> > macros
> >
> >
> > On Sat, Jan 12, 2002 at 02:16:08PM -0500, James C. Owens wrote:
> > > Ingo,
> > >
> > > I like the new scheduler. It seems like the timeslice
> > macros in sched.h
> > > could be more straighforward - i.e. instead of
> >
> >    (I quote too much, but to illustriate the point...)
> >
> > > #define PRIO_TO_TIMESLICE(p) \
> > >   (((
> > (MAX_USER_PRIO-1-USER_PRIO(p))*(MAX_TIMESLICE-MIN_TIMESLICE) + \
> > >      MAX_USER_PRIO-1) / MAX_USER_PRIO) + MIN_TIMESLICE)
> > >
> > > #define RT_PRIO_TO_TIMESLICE(p) \
> > >   ((( (MAX_RT_PRIO-(p)-1)*(MAX_TIMESLICE-MIN_TIMESLICE) + \
> > >      MAX_RT_PRIO-1) / MAX_RT_PRIO) + MIN_TIMESLICE)
> > >
> > > why not
> > >
> > > #define PRIO_TO_TIMESLICE(p) \
> > >   (MAX_TIMESLICE -
> > >    (USER_PRIO(p)/(MAX_USER_PRIO-1))*(MAX_TIMESLICE-MIN_TIMESLICE))
> > >
> > > #define RT_PRIO_TO_TIMESLICE(p) \
> > >   (MAX_TIMESLICE -
> > (p/(MAX_RT_PRIO-1))*(MAX_TIMESLICE-MIN_TIMESLICE))
> > >
> > >
> > > The second way seems simpler to me, and really illustrates
> > what you are
> > > doing in a more straightforward manner.
> >
> >    Except that the math is INTEGER, not floating-point,
> >    which means that this way you loose precission.
> >
> >    You HAVE TO do multiplications first, only then (finally)
> > the division.
> >
> >    Depending the value-spaces, small-enough value-spaces might be
> >    turnable into table mappings.  However that has lots of
> > dependencies
> >    in hardware architecture, e.g. memory access speeds, cache
> > pollution,
> >    speed of multiply/divide operations, etc.
> >
> >    If dividers/multipliers are constants, and powers of two, the math
> >    can happen with constant shifts, which are fast at all systems.
> >    If not, things get rather complicated.   (And thus a careless -1,
> >    or lack of one, may be costly.)
> >
> [snip]
> > /Matti Aarnio
> >
> 
> Point well made. How about
> 
> #define PRIO_TO_TIMESLICE(p) \
>   (MAX_TIMESLICE -
> ((USER_PRIO(p)*(MAX_TIMESLICE-MIN_TIMESLICE))/(MAX_USER_PRIO-1)))
> 
> #define RT_PRIO_TO_TIMESLICE(p) \
>   (MAX_TIMESLICE - ((p*(MAX_TIMESLICE-MIN_TIMESLICE))/(MAX_RT_PRIO-1)))
> 
> If people agree with this, I'll submit a new diff (with the right options).
> 
> Jim Owens

If performance is important here we could eliminate the "/" thusly:

#define SC 24 // Change as needed to get precision and fit in 32 bits
#define SC_USER_FACTOR
((MAX_TIMESLICE-MIN_TIMESLICE)<<SC)/(MAX_USER_PRIO-1) // a constant
#define PRIO_TO_TIMESLICE(p) \
   (MAX_TIMESLICE - ((USER_PRIO(p) * (SC_USER_FACTOR))>>SC

To eliminate the ">>" one could go to SC=32 and then just take the high
32-bits of the mpy.  Taking the high 32-bits of mpy (which gives
64-bits) requires asm, but SC_USER_FACTOR would be:
#define SC_USER_FACTOR \
(long)((long long) (MAX_TIMESLICE-MIN_TIMESLICE)<<SC)/(long
long)(MAX_USER_PRIO-1) 

SC=32 can be used as long as
(MAX_TIMESLICE-MIN_TIMESLICE)<(MAX_USER_PRIO-1)
-- 
George           [e-mail]
High-res-timers: http://sourceforge.net/projects/high-res-timers/
Real time sched: http://sourceforge.net/projects/rtsched/