On Sat, Jun 20, 2020 at 14:45:51 -0700, Richard Henderson wrote: > Use <= comparisons vs the threshold, so that threshold UINT64_MAX > is always true, corresponding to rate 1.0 being unity. Simplify > do_threshold scaling to 2**64, with a special case for 1.0. > > Cc: Emilio G. Cota <c...@braap.org> > Signed-off-by: Richard Henderson <richard.hender...@linaro.org> > --- > tests/qht-bench.c | 15 +++++++++++---- > 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/tests/qht-bench.c b/tests/qht-bench.c > index eb88a90137..21b1b7de82 100644 > --- a/tests/qht-bench.c > +++ b/tests/qht-bench.c > @@ -132,7 +132,7 @@ static void do_rz(struct thread_info *info) > { > struct thread_stats *stats = &info->stats; > > - if (info->r < resize_threshold) { > + if (info->r <= resize_threshold) { > size_t size = info->resize_down ? resize_min : resize_max; > bool resized;
This works, but only because info->r cannot be 0 since xorshift never returns it. (xorshift returns a random number in the range [1, u64max], a fact that I missed when I wrote this code.) If r were 0, then we would resize even if resize_threshold == 0.0. I think it will be easier to reason about this if we rename info->r to info->seed, and then have a local r = info->seed - 1. Then we can keep the "if random < threshold" form (and its negated "if random >= threshold" as below), which (at least to me) is intuitive provided that random's range is [0, threshold), e.g. [0.0, 1.0) with drand48(3). > @@ -154,7 +154,7 @@ static void do_rw(struct thread_info *info) > uint32_t hash; > long *p; > > - if (info->r >= update_threshold) { > + if (info->r > update_threshold) { > bool read; > > p = &keys[info->r & (lookup_range - 1)]; > @@ -281,11 +281,18 @@ static void pr_params(void) > > static void do_threshold(double rate, uint64_t *threshold) > { > + /* > + * For 0 <= rate <= 1, scale to fit in a uint64_t. > + * > + * For rate == 1, returning UINT64_MAX means 100% certainty: all > + * uint64_t will match using <=. The largest representable value > + * for rate less than 1 is 0.999999999999999889; scaling that > + * by 2**64 results in 0xfffffffffffff800. > + */ > if (rate == 1.0) { > *threshold = UINT64_MAX; > } else { > - *threshold = (rate * 0xffff000000000000ull) > - + (rate * 0x0000ffffffffffffull); > + *threshold = rate * 0x1p64; I'm sorry this caused a breakage for some integration tests; I thought this was fixed in May with: https://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2020-05/msg01477.html Just for my own education, why isn't nextafter needed here? Thanks, Emilio