From: daniel.lezcano@linaro.org (Daniel Lezcano)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH] clocksource/drivers/pistachio: Fix wrong calculated clocksource read value
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2015 17:23:45 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <56719011.4080500@linaro.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20151216103803.GE8644@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>
On 12/16/2015 11:38 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 11:32:17AM +0100, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>> On 12/16/2015 10:33 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
>>> On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 10:21:55AM +0100, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>>>> On 12/16/2015 08:36 AM, Jisheng Zhang wrote:
>>>>> And in fact, clocksource_mmio_readw_down() also has similar issue, but it masks
>>>>> with c->mask before return, the c->mask is less than 32 bit (because the
>>>>> clocksource_mmio_init think number of valid bits > 32 or < 16 is invalid.)
>>>>> the higher 32 bits are masked off, so we never saw such issue. But we'd better
>>>>> to fix that, what's your opinion?
>>>>
>>>> I think we should have a look to this portion closely.
>>>
>>> There is no need to return more bits than are specified. If you have
>>> a N-bit counter, then the high (64-N)-bits can be any value, because:
>>>
>>> static inline cycle_t clocksource_delta(cycle_t now, cycle_t last, cycle_t mask)
>>> {
>>> return (now - last) & mask;
>>> }
>>>
>>> where 'now' is the current value returned from the clock source read
>>> function, 'last' is a previously returned value, and 'mask' is the
>>> bit mask. This has the effect of ignoring the high order bits.
>>
>> I think this approach is perfectly sane. When I said we should look at this
>> portion closely, I meant we should double check the bitwise-nor order
>> regarding the explicit cast. The clocksource's mask makes sense and must
>> stay untouched.
>
> That's not my point. Whether you do:
>
> ~(cycle_t)readl(...)
>
> or
>
> (cycle_t)~readl(...)
>
> is irrelevant - the result is the same as far as the core code is
> concerned as it doesn't care about the higher order bits.
>
> The only thing about which should be done is really which is faster
> in the general case, since this is a fast path in the time keeping
> code.
Ah, ok. Yes, I agree.
--
<http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org ? Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro> Facebook |
<http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg> Twitter |
<http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog/> Blog
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>
To: Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@arm.linux.org.uk>
Cc: Jisheng Zhang <jszhang@marvell.com>,
tglx@linutronix.de, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] clocksource/drivers/pistachio: Fix wrong calculated clocksource read value
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2015 17:23:45 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <56719011.4080500@linaro.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20151216103803.GE8644@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>
On 12/16/2015 11:38 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 11:32:17AM +0100, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>> On 12/16/2015 10:33 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
>>> On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 10:21:55AM +0100, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>>>> On 12/16/2015 08:36 AM, Jisheng Zhang wrote:
>>>>> And in fact, clocksource_mmio_readw_down() also has similar issue, but it masks
>>>>> with c->mask before return, the c->mask is less than 32 bit (because the
>>>>> clocksource_mmio_init think number of valid bits > 32 or < 16 is invalid.)
>>>>> the higher 32 bits are masked off, so we never saw such issue. But we'd better
>>>>> to fix that, what's your opinion?
>>>>
>>>> I think we should have a look to this portion closely.
>>>
>>> There is no need to return more bits than are specified. If you have
>>> a N-bit counter, then the high (64-N)-bits can be any value, because:
>>>
>>> static inline cycle_t clocksource_delta(cycle_t now, cycle_t last, cycle_t mask)
>>> {
>>> return (now - last) & mask;
>>> }
>>>
>>> where 'now' is the current value returned from the clock source read
>>> function, 'last' is a previously returned value, and 'mask' is the
>>> bit mask. This has the effect of ignoring the high order bits.
>>
>> I think this approach is perfectly sane. When I said we should look at this
>> portion closely, I meant we should double check the bitwise-nor order
>> regarding the explicit cast. The clocksource's mask makes sense and must
>> stay untouched.
>
> That's not my point. Whether you do:
>
> ~(cycle_t)readl(...)
>
> or
>
> (cycle_t)~readl(...)
>
> is irrelevant - the result is the same as far as the core code is
> concerned as it doesn't care about the higher order bits.
>
> The only thing about which should be done is really which is faster
> in the general case, since this is a fast path in the time keeping
> code.
Ah, ok. Yes, I agree.
--
<http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro> Facebook |
<http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg> Twitter |
<http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog/> Blog
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-12-16 16:23 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 28+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-11-25 15:42 [PATCH] clocksource/drivers/pistachio: Fix wrong calculated clocksource read value Jisheng Zhang
2015-11-25 15:42 ` Jisheng Zhang
2015-12-15 20:59 ` Daniel Lezcano
2015-12-15 20:59 ` Daniel Lezcano
2015-12-16 7:11 ` Jisheng Zhang
2015-12-16 7:11 ` Jisheng Zhang
2015-12-16 7:28 ` Jisheng Zhang
2015-12-16 7:28 ` Jisheng Zhang
2015-12-16 7:36 ` Jisheng Zhang
2015-12-16 7:36 ` Jisheng Zhang
2015-12-16 7:49 ` Jisheng Zhang
2015-12-16 7:49 ` Jisheng Zhang
2015-12-16 9:21 ` Daniel Lezcano
2015-12-16 9:21 ` Daniel Lezcano
2015-12-16 9:33 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2015-12-16 9:33 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2015-12-16 10:32 ` Daniel Lezcano
2015-12-16 10:32 ` Daniel Lezcano
2015-12-16 10:38 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2015-12-16 10:38 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2015-12-16 16:23 ` Daniel Lezcano [this message]
2015-12-16 16:23 ` Daniel Lezcano
2015-12-17 9:07 ` Jisheng Zhang
2015-12-17 9:07 ` Jisheng Zhang
2015-12-16 9:01 ` Daniel Lezcano
2015-12-16 9:01 ` Daniel Lezcano
2015-12-16 9:02 ` Daniel Lezcano
2015-12-16 9:02 ` Daniel Lezcano
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=56719011.4080500@linaro.org \
--to=daniel.lezcano@linaro.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.