From: Leslie Monis <lesliemonis@gmail.com>
To: David Laight <David.Laight@ACULAB.COM>
Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] net: sched: pie: fix 64-bit division
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2019 21:42:28 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190227161228.GA2014@Inspiron-3521> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <44c1c447befd45e49a06b1e3d3f5f7a6@AcuMS.aculab.com>
On Wed, Feb 27, 2019 at 10:11:14AM +0000, David Laight wrote:
> From: Leslie Monis
> > Sent: 27 February 2019 01:00
> > Use div_u64() to resolve build failures on 32-bit platforms.
> >
> > Fixes: 3f7ae5f3dc52 ("net: sched: pie: add more cases to auto-tune alpha and beta")
> > Signed-off-by: Leslie Monis <lesliemonis@gmail.com>
> > ---
> > net/sched/sch_pie.c | 2 +-
> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/net/sched/sch_pie.c b/net/sched/sch_pie.c
> > index 4c0670b6aec1..f93cfe034c72 100644
> > --- a/net/sched/sch_pie.c
> > +++ b/net/sched/sch_pie.c
> > @@ -429,7 +429,7 @@ static void calculate_probability(struct Qdisc *sch)
> > */
> >
> > if (qdelay == 0 && qdelay_old == 0 && update_prob)
> > - q->vars.prob = (q->vars.prob * 98) / 100;
> > + q->vars.prob = 98 * div_u64(q->vars.prob, 100);
>
> This has significantly different rounding after the change.
> The result for small values is very different.
> The alterative:
> q->vars.prob -= div_u64(q->vars.prob, 50);
> is much nearer to the original - but never goes to zero.
>
> If the 98% decay factor isn't critical then you could remove
> 1/64th or 1/32nd + 1/16th to avoid the slow division.
>
> David
>
> -
> Registered Address Lakeside, Bramley Road, Mount Farm, Milton Keynes, MK1 1PT, UK
> Registration No: 1397386 (Wales)
>
Hi David,
You're right, the change does make the result for small
values different. I made it anyway as the probability
value is scaled by u64. It is safe to say that q->vars.prob
holds relatively large values (in its scaled form) in all
cases where it isn't 0.
But, I think we can avoid the slow division here. RFC 8033
does say that using (1 - 1/64) should be sufficient. This
will give us:
q-vars.prob -= q->vars.prob >> 6;
which I feel would be much better. What do you reckon?
Thanks a lot for the feedback.
Cheers,
Leslie
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-02-27 16:12 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-02-27 1:00 [PATCH net-next] net: sched: pie: fix 64-bit division Leslie Monis
2019-02-27 1:53 ` Randy Dunlap
2019-02-27 2:55 ` David Miller
2019-02-27 10:11 ` David Laight
2019-02-27 16:12 ` Leslie Monis [this message]
2019-02-28 10:10 ` David Laight
2019-02-28 10:16 ` Leslie Monis
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20190227161228.GA2014@Inspiron-3521 \
--to=lesliemonis@gmail.com \
--cc=David.Laight@ACULAB.COM \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).