* Re: [Xenomai-core] [Xenomai-commits] r4392 - /trunk/include/asm-x86/arith_64.h
[not found] <E1L1XPO-0006Xh-1s@domain.hid>
@ 2008-11-16 10:35 ` Jan Kiszka
2008-11-16 12:13 ` Gilles Chanteperdrix
0 siblings, 1 reply; 2+ messages in thread
From: Jan Kiszka @ 2008-11-16 10:35 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Gilles Chanteperdrix; +Cc: xenomai-core
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 713 bytes --]
Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
> Author: gch
> Date: Sun Nov 16 03:30:40 2008
> New Revision: 4392
>
> URL: http://svn.gna.org/viewcvs/xenomai?rev=4392&view=rev
> Log:
> Implement nodiv_ullimd on x86_64
>
> Modified:
> trunk/include/asm-x86/arith_64.h
Nice. This solves the user-triggerable kernel oops due to idiv overflows
in the original version (rt_task_sleep_until(1LL<<63);). I happened to
receive such a bug report on Friday and was about to consider
alternative solutions beyond limit checks.
But how accurate is this conversion? I mean how many bits can we lose
when doing xnarch_ns_to_tsc(xnarch_tsc_to_ns(x))?
Final question: Already prepared a 32-bit version? :)
Jan
[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 257 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
* Re: [Xenomai-core] [Xenomai-commits] r4392 - /trunk/include/asm-x86/arith_64.h
2008-11-16 10:35 ` [Xenomai-core] [Xenomai-commits] r4392 - /trunk/include/asm-x86/arith_64.h Jan Kiszka
@ 2008-11-16 12:13 ` Gilles Chanteperdrix
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2+ messages in thread
From: Gilles Chanteperdrix @ 2008-11-16 12:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jan Kiszka; +Cc: xenomai-core
Jan Kiszka wrote:
> Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
>> Author: gch
>> Date: Sun Nov 16 03:30:40 2008
>> New Revision: 4392
>>
>> URL: http://svn.gna.org/viewcvs/xenomai?rev=4392&view=rev
>> Log:
>> Implement nodiv_ullimd on x86_64
>>
>> Modified:
>> trunk/include/asm-x86/arith_64.h
>
> Nice. This solves the user-triggerable kernel oops due to idiv overflows
> in the original version (rt_task_sleep_until(1LL<<63);). I happened to
> receive such a bug report on Friday and was about to consider
> alternative solutions beyond limit checks.
>
> But how accurate is this conversion? I mean how many bits can we lose
> when doing xnarch_ns_to_tsc(xnarch_tsc_to_ns(x))?
Thanks to a little addition, nodiv_ullimd has the same precision as ullimd.
>
> Final question: Already prepared a 32-bit version? :)
Yes, the generic vercion should work, provided we implement
__rthal_add96and64
which does an addl and two adcl
--
Gilles.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2008-11-16 12:13 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
[not found] <E1L1XPO-0006Xh-1s@domain.hid>
2008-11-16 10:35 ` [Xenomai-core] [Xenomai-commits] r4392 - /trunk/include/asm-x86/arith_64.h Jan Kiszka
2008-11-16 12:13 ` Gilles Chanteperdrix
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.