From: Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>
To: Doug Anderson <dianders@chromium.org>
Cc: Wim Van Sebroeck <wim@iguana.be>,
Leela Krishna Amudala <l.krishna@samsung.com>,
Olof Johansson <olof@lixom.net>,
Tomasz Figa <tomasz.figa@gmail.com>,
Kukjin Kim <kgene.kim@samsung.com>,
Ben Dooks <ben-linux@fluff.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
linux-samsung-soc <linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-watchdog@vger.kernel.org,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] watchdog: s3c2410_wdt: Handle rounding a little better for timeout
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2013 16:10:24 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <52953870.5050906@roeck-us.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAD=FV=UX5gm3Ju8sCd3DSgyo97P6imN_Ay1zvc8yX=qTJ_mbrw@mail.gmail.com>
On 11/26/2013 01:34 PM, Doug Anderson wrote:
> Guenter,
>
> On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 10:48 AM, Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net> wrote:
>> On 11/26/2013 10:30 AM, Doug Anderson wrote:
>>>
>>> The existing watchdog timeout worked OK but didn't deal with
>>> rounding in an ideal way when dividing out all of its clocks.
>>>
>>> Specifically if you had a timeout of 32 seconds and an input clock of
>>> 66666666, you'd end up setting a timeout of 31.9998 seconds and
>>> reporting a timeout of 31 seconds.
>>>
>>> Specifically DBG printouts showed:
>>> s3c2410wdt_set_heartbeat: count=16666656, timeout=32, freq=520833
>>> s3c2410wdt_set_heartbeat: timeout=32, divisor=255, count=16666656
>>> (0000ff4f)
>>> and the final timeout reported to the user was:
>>> ((count / divisor) * divisor) / freq
>>> (0xff4f * 255) / 520833 = 31 (truncated from 31.9998)
>>> the technically "correct" value is:
>>> (0xff4f * 255) / (66666666.0 / 128) = 31.9998
>>>
>>> By using "DIV_ROUND_UP" we can be a little more correct.
>>> s3c2410wdt_set_heartbeat: count=16666688, timeout=32, freq=520834
>>> s3c2410wdt_set_heartbeat: timeout=32, divisor=255, count=16666688
>>> (0000ff50)
>>> and the final timeout reported to the user:
>>> (0xff50 * 255) / 520834 = 32
>>> the technically "correct" value is:
>>> (0xff50 * 255) / (66666666.0 / 128) = 32.0003
>>>
>>> We'll use a DIV_ROUND_UP to solve this, generally erroring on the side
>>> of reporting shorter values to the user and setting the watchdog to
>>> slightly longer than requested:
>>> * Round input frequency up to assume watchdog is counting faster.
>>> * Round divisions by divisor up to give us extra time.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Doug Anderson <dianders@chromium.org>
>>> ---
>>> drivers/watchdog/s3c2410_wdt.c | 10 +++++-----
>>> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/watchdog/s3c2410_wdt.c
>>> b/drivers/watchdog/s3c2410_wdt.c
>>> index 7d8fd04..fe2322b 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/watchdog/s3c2410_wdt.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/watchdog/s3c2410_wdt.c
>>> @@ -188,7 +188,7 @@ static int s3c2410wdt_set_heartbeat(struct
>>> watchdog_device *wdd, unsigned timeou
>>> if (timeout < 1)
>>> return -EINVAL;
>>>
>>> - freq /= 128;
>>> + freq = DIV_ROUND_UP(freq, 128);
>>> count = timeout * freq;
>>>
>>> DBG("%s: count=%d, timeout=%d, freq=%lu\n",
>>> @@ -201,20 +201,20 @@ static int s3c2410wdt_set_heartbeat(struct
>>> watchdog_device *wdd, unsigned timeou
>>>
>>> if (count >= 0x10000) {
>>> for (divisor = 1; divisor <= 0x100; divisor++) {
>>> - if ((count / divisor) < 0x10000)
>>> + if (DIV_ROUND_UP(count, divisor) < 0x10000)
>>> break;
>>> }
>>>
>> Since you are at it,
>> divisor = DIV_ROUND_UP(count + 1, 0x10000);
>> might be faster, simpler, and easier to understand than the loop.
>
> Way to see the forest for the trees!
>
> Your math ends up with a slightly different result than the old code,
> though. One example is when the count is 0x1ffff. You'll end up with
> a divider of 2 and I'll end up with a divider of 3.
>
> I think we just want:
>
> divisor = DIV_ROUND_UP(count, 0xffff);
>
> ...that produces the same result as the old loop, but am curious to
> know why you chose the "count + 1" and "0x10000".
>
Hi Doug,
I thought the idea was to keep (count / div) less than 0x10000, which you get
by dividing through 0x10000. 0x10000 / 0x10000 = 1, though, so I added 1
to the counter. But maybe I was thinking too much ;-).
Now, 0x1ffff / 2 = 0xffff is still lower than 0x10000, which is what
I thought is the requirement. Ultimately the error is small either way,
so DIV_ROUND_UP(count, 0xffff) is just as good to me to avoid the loop.
Thanks,
Guenter
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: linux@roeck-us.net (Guenter Roeck)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH] watchdog: s3c2410_wdt: Handle rounding a little better for timeout
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2013 16:10:24 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <52953870.5050906@roeck-us.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAD=FV=UX5gm3Ju8sCd3DSgyo97P6imN_Ay1zvc8yX=qTJ_mbrw@mail.gmail.com>
On 11/26/2013 01:34 PM, Doug Anderson wrote:
> Guenter,
>
> On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 10:48 AM, Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net> wrote:
>> On 11/26/2013 10:30 AM, Doug Anderson wrote:
>>>
>>> The existing watchdog timeout worked OK but didn't deal with
>>> rounding in an ideal way when dividing out all of its clocks.
>>>
>>> Specifically if you had a timeout of 32 seconds and an input clock of
>>> 66666666, you'd end up setting a timeout of 31.9998 seconds and
>>> reporting a timeout of 31 seconds.
>>>
>>> Specifically DBG printouts showed:
>>> s3c2410wdt_set_heartbeat: count=16666656, timeout=32, freq=520833
>>> s3c2410wdt_set_heartbeat: timeout=32, divisor=255, count=16666656
>>> (0000ff4f)
>>> and the final timeout reported to the user was:
>>> ((count / divisor) * divisor) / freq
>>> (0xff4f * 255) / 520833 = 31 (truncated from 31.9998)
>>> the technically "correct" value is:
>>> (0xff4f * 255) / (66666666.0 / 128) = 31.9998
>>>
>>> By using "DIV_ROUND_UP" we can be a little more correct.
>>> s3c2410wdt_set_heartbeat: count=16666688, timeout=32, freq=520834
>>> s3c2410wdt_set_heartbeat: timeout=32, divisor=255, count=16666688
>>> (0000ff50)
>>> and the final timeout reported to the user:
>>> (0xff50 * 255) / 520834 = 32
>>> the technically "correct" value is:
>>> (0xff50 * 255) / (66666666.0 / 128) = 32.0003
>>>
>>> We'll use a DIV_ROUND_UP to solve this, generally erroring on the side
>>> of reporting shorter values to the user and setting the watchdog to
>>> slightly longer than requested:
>>> * Round input frequency up to assume watchdog is counting faster.
>>> * Round divisions by divisor up to give us extra time.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Doug Anderson <dianders@chromium.org>
>>> ---
>>> drivers/watchdog/s3c2410_wdt.c | 10 +++++-----
>>> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/watchdog/s3c2410_wdt.c
>>> b/drivers/watchdog/s3c2410_wdt.c
>>> index 7d8fd04..fe2322b 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/watchdog/s3c2410_wdt.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/watchdog/s3c2410_wdt.c
>>> @@ -188,7 +188,7 @@ static int s3c2410wdt_set_heartbeat(struct
>>> watchdog_device *wdd, unsigned timeou
>>> if (timeout < 1)
>>> return -EINVAL;
>>>
>>> - freq /= 128;
>>> + freq = DIV_ROUND_UP(freq, 128);
>>> count = timeout * freq;
>>>
>>> DBG("%s: count=%d, timeout=%d, freq=%lu\n",
>>> @@ -201,20 +201,20 @@ static int s3c2410wdt_set_heartbeat(struct
>>> watchdog_device *wdd, unsigned timeou
>>>
>>> if (count >= 0x10000) {
>>> for (divisor = 1; divisor <= 0x100; divisor++) {
>>> - if ((count / divisor) < 0x10000)
>>> + if (DIV_ROUND_UP(count, divisor) < 0x10000)
>>> break;
>>> }
>>>
>> Since you are at it,
>> divisor = DIV_ROUND_UP(count + 1, 0x10000);
>> might be faster, simpler, and easier to understand than the loop.
>
> Way to see the forest for the trees!
>
> Your math ends up with a slightly different result than the old code,
> though. One example is when the count is 0x1ffff. You'll end up with
> a divider of 2 and I'll end up with a divider of 3.
>
> I think we just want:
>
> divisor = DIV_ROUND_UP(count, 0xffff);
>
> ...that produces the same result as the old loop, but am curious to
> know why you chose the "count + 1" and "0x10000".
>
Hi Doug,
I thought the idea was to keep (count / div) less than 0x10000, which you get
by dividing through 0x10000. 0x10000 / 0x10000 = 1, though, so I added 1
to the counter. But maybe I was thinking too much ;-).
Now, 0x1ffff / 2 = 0xffff is still lower than 0x10000, which is what
I thought is the requirement. Ultimately the error is small either way,
so DIV_ROUND_UP(count, 0xffff) is just as good to me to avoid the loop.
Thanks,
Guenter
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-11-27 0:10 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-11-26 18:30 [PATCH] watchdog: s3c2410_wdt: Handle rounding a little better for timeout Doug Anderson
2013-11-26 18:30 ` Doug Anderson
2013-11-26 18:30 ` Doug Anderson
2013-11-26 18:48 ` Guenter Roeck
2013-11-26 18:48 ` Guenter Roeck
2013-11-26 21:34 ` Doug Anderson
2013-11-26 21:34 ` Doug Anderson
2013-11-27 0:10 ` Guenter Roeck [this message]
2013-11-27 0:10 ` Guenter Roeck
2013-11-27 0:57 ` Doug Anderson
2013-11-27 0:57 ` Doug Anderson
2013-11-27 0:57 ` Doug Anderson
2013-11-27 0:57 ` [PATCH v2] " Doug Anderson
2013-11-27 0:57 ` Doug Anderson
2013-11-27 1:04 ` Guenter Roeck
2013-11-27 1:04 ` Guenter Roeck
2014-01-08 20:03 ` Wim Van Sebroeck
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=52953870.5050906@roeck-us.net \
--to=linux@roeck-us.net \
--cc=ben-linux@fluff.org \
--cc=dianders@chromium.org \
--cc=kgene.kim@samsung.com \
--cc=l.krishna@samsung.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-watchdog@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=olof@lixom.net \
--cc=tomasz.figa@gmail.com \
--cc=wim@iguana.be \
/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.