From: hch@infradead.org (Christoph Hellwig)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: enabling libgcc for 64-bit divisions, was Re: PROBLEM: XFS on ARM corruption 'Structure needs cleaning'
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2015 23:24:45 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20150812062445.GA4520@infradead.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <C6D0D499B56584katsuki.uwatoko@toshiba.co.jp>
On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 12:56:25AM +0000, katsuki.uwatoko at toshiba.co.jp wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Jun 2015 08:52:09 +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
>
> > Yup, that's looking like a toolchain bug. Thread about arm directory
> > read corruption:
>
> I think that this is not a toolchain bug, this is related to
> Subject: [PATCH v2 1/1] ARM : missing corrupted reg in __do_div_asm
> http://www.spinics.net/lists/arm-kernel/msg426684.html
Maybe it's time to rely on gcc to handle 64 bit divisions now?
I've been pretty annoyed at the amount of 32-bit architecture build
failures due to the lack of support for native 64-bit divisions, and
the ugly do_div hackery to work around it.
We're living in a world where we are using a lot of 64-bit CPUs and
people optimize for them, so it might be a good time to start relying
on the compiler to get these right on older CPUs.
How bad is gcc's code for 64-bit divisions on arm and x86 these days?
Is there still a good case for offloading work the compiler should be
doing on the programmer?
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
To: katsuki.uwatoko@toshiba.co.jp
Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, david@fromorbit.com,
gangchen@rdamicro.com, linux@arm.linux.org.uk,
karanvir.singh@hgst.com, luca@skylable.com,
christopher.squires@hgst.com, edwin@skylable.com,
wayne.burri@hgst.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: enabling libgcc for 64-bit divisions, was Re: PROBLEM: XFS on ARM corruption 'Structure needs cleaning'
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2015 23:24:45 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20150812062445.GA4520@infradead.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <C6D0D499B56584katsuki.uwatoko@toshiba.co.jp>
On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 12:56:25AM +0000, katsuki.uwatoko@toshiba.co.jp wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Jun 2015 08:52:09 +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
>
> > Yup, that's looking like a toolchain bug. Thread about arm directory
> > read corruption:
>
> I think that this is not a toolchain bug, this is related to
> Subject: [PATCH v2 1/1] ARM : missing corrupted reg in __do_div_asm
> http://www.spinics.net/lists/arm-kernel/msg426684.html
Maybe it's time to rely on gcc to handle 64 bit divisions now?
I've been pretty annoyed at the amount of 32-bit architecture build
failures due to the lack of support for native 64-bit divisions, and
the ugly do_div hackery to work around it.
We're living in a world where we are using a lot of 64-bit CPUs and
people optimize for them, so it might be a good time to start relying
on the compiler to get these right on older CPUs.
How bad is gcc's code for 64-bit divisions on arm and x86 these days?
Is there still a good case for offloading work the compiler should be
doing on the programmer?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-08-12 6:24 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 38+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-06-11 6:23 PROBLEM: XFS on ARM corruption 'Structure needs cleaning' Török Edwin
2015-06-11 15:16 ` Brian Foster
2015-06-11 15:28 ` Török Edwin
2015-06-11 15:51 ` Eric Sandeen
2015-06-11 15:58 ` Eric Sandeen
2015-06-11 16:32 ` Török Edwin
2015-06-11 17:10 ` Eric Sandeen
2015-06-11 17:13 ` Török Edwin
2015-06-11 17:16 ` Eric Sandeen
2015-06-11 20:07 ` Eric Sandeen
2015-06-11 20:29 ` Eric Sandeen
2015-06-11 22:53 ` Dave Chinner
2015-06-12 12:21 ` Brian Foster
2015-06-12 12:47 ` Török Edwin
2015-06-12 13:54 ` Brian Foster
2015-06-12 20:19 ` Eric Sandeen
[not found] ` <BLUPR04MB593340A765596780F266454F2BB0@BLUPR04MB593.namprd04.prod.outlook.com>
2015-06-13 13:55 ` Török Edwin
2015-06-12 22:52 ` Dave Chinner
2015-08-12 0:56 ` katsuki.uwatoko
2015-08-12 0:56 ` katsuki.uwatoko at toshiba.co.jp
2015-08-12 3:14 ` Dave Chinner
2015-08-12 3:14 ` Dave Chinner
2015-08-12 6:19 ` katsuki.uwatoko
2015-08-12 6:19 ` katsuki.uwatoko at toshiba.co.jp
2015-08-12 6:24 ` Christoph Hellwig [this message]
2015-08-12 6:24 ` enabling libgcc for 64-bit divisions, was " Christoph Hellwig
2015-08-12 15:49 ` Linus Torvalds
2015-08-12 15:49 ` Linus Torvalds
2015-08-12 22:20 ` Andy Lutomirski
2015-08-12 22:20 ` Andy Lutomirski
2015-08-12 22:36 ` Linus Torvalds
2015-08-12 22:36 ` Linus Torvalds
2015-08-12 22:39 ` Andy Lutomirski
2015-08-12 22:39 ` Andy Lutomirski
2015-08-13 3:28 ` Andrew Morton
2015-08-13 3:28 ` Andrew Morton
2015-10-08 15:50 ` Pavel Machek
2015-10-08 15:50 ` Pavel Machek
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=20150812062445.GA4520@infradead.org \
--to=hch@infradead.org \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.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.