From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>
To: Gabriel Paubert <paubert@iram.es>
Cc: Yoann Vandoorselaere <yoann@prelude-ids.org>,
<cpufreq@lists.arm.linux.org.uk>, <cpufreq@www.linux.org.uk>,
<linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH]: fix 32bits integer overflow in loops_per_jiffy calculation
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 16:31:15 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20020822143115.15323@192.168.4.1> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <3D64D51C.9040603@iram.es>
>Well, first on sane archs which have an easily accessible, fixed
>frequency time counter, loops_per_jiffy should never have existed :-)
>
>Second, putting this code there means that one day somebody will
>inevitably try to use it outside of its domain of operation (like it
>happened for div64 a few months ago when I pointed out that it would not
>work for divisors above 65535 or so).
Well... it's clearly located inside kernel/cpufreq.c, so there is
little risk, though it may be worth a big bold comment
>Finally, I agree that we should not import libgcc, but for example on
>PPC32 the double lengths shifts (__ashrdi3, __ashldi3, and __lshsldi3)
>are implemented somewhere, and the assembly implementation (directly
>taken from some appendix in PPC documentation, I just slightly twisted
>__ashrdi3 to make it branchless AFAIR) is actually way faster than the
>one in libgcc ;-), and less than half the size.
>
> Adding a few subroutines that implement a subset of libgcc's
>functionality is necessary for most archs (which functions are needed is
>arch, and sometimes compiler's, dependent).
>
>In this case a generic scaling function, while not a standard libgcc/C
>library feature has potentially more applications than this simple
>cpufreq approximation. But I don't see very much the need for scaling a
>long (64 bit on 64 bit archs) value, 32 bit would be sufficient.
Well... if you can write one, go on then ;) In my case, I'm happy
with Yoann implementation for cpufreq right now. Though I agree that
could ultimately be moved to arch code.
Ben.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2002-08-22 12:26 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2002-08-22 13:02 [PATCH]: fix 32bits integer overflow in loops_per_jiffy calculation Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2002-08-22 12:12 ` Gabriel Paubert
2002-08-22 14:31 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt [this message]
2002-08-22 15:23 ` Gabriel Paubert
2002-08-22 15:59 ` Yoann Vandoorselaere
2002-08-22 17:22 ` [PATCH]: fix 32bits integer overflow in loops_per_jiffycalculation george anzinger
2002-08-22 16:51 ` [PATCH]: fix 32bits integer overflow in loops_per_jiffy calculation Dominik Brodowski
2002-08-22 19:35 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2002-08-22 17:46 ` Dominik Brodowski
2002-08-22 18:02 ` Yoann Vandoorselaere
2002-08-22 20:00 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2002-08-22 9:50 Yoann Vandoorselaere
2002-08-22 10:21 ` Gabriel Paubert
2002-08-22 13:00 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
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=20020822143115.15323@192.168.4.1 \
--to=benh@kernel.crashing.org \
--cc=cpufreq@lists.arm.linux.org.uk \
--cc=cpufreq@www.linux.org.uk \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=paubert@iram.es \
--cc=yoann@prelude-ids.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 an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.