BPF List
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: sashiko-bot@kernel.org
To: "Ankur Arora" <ankur.a.arora@oracle.com>
Cc: bpf@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v15 03/16] arm64/delay: move, fixup usecs_to_cycles()
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2026 22:06:21 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260831220621.D6DA61F000E9@smtp.kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260831202251.305046-4-ankur.a.arora@oracle.com>

Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 1 potential issue(s) to consider:

Pre-existing issues:
- [High] This problem wasn't introduced by this patch, but the patch fixes a 64-bit integer overflow bug in arm64 delay calculations while deliberately leaving the exact same arithmetic bug unfixed in the duplicated code in `qcom/rpmh-rsc.c`, which causes hardware wakeup times to be incorrectly programmed for sleep durations exceeding ~224 seconds.
--

commit d104dae593c77167ffada79f1a496fa20b5c86dd
Author: Ankur Arora <ankur.a.arora@oracle.com>

arm64/delay: move, fixup usecs_to_cycles()

This patch updates xloops_to_cycles() to use mul_u64_u64_shr() instead of
32-bit fixed point arithmetic to avoid truncation for delay values larger
than ~10s. It also moves cycles computation out to a new header, makes 
__delay_cycles() available outside delay.c, and renames some colliding 
namespaces in qcom/rpmh-rsc.c.

> diff --git a/drivers/soc/qcom/rpmh-rsc.c b/drivers/soc/qcom/rpmh-rsc.c
> index c6f7d5c9c493d..ad5ec5c0de0a3 100644
> --- a/drivers/soc/qcom/rpmh-rsc.c
> +++ b/drivers/soc/qcom/rpmh-rsc.c
[ ... ]
> @@ -146,10 +146,10 @@ enum {
>   *  +---------------------------------------------------+
>   */
>  
> -#define USECS_TO_CYCLES(time_usecs)			\
> -	xloops_to_cycles((time_usecs) * 0x10C7UL)
> +#define RPMH_USECS_TO_CYCLES(time_usecs)		\
> +	rpmh_xloops_to_cycles((time_usecs) * 0x10C7UL)
>  
> -static inline unsigned long xloops_to_cycles(u64 xloops)
> +static inline unsigned long rpmh_xloops_to_cycles(u64 xloops)
>  {
>  	return (xloops * loops_per_jiffy * HZ) >> 32;
>  }

[Severity: High]
This isn't a bug introduced by this patch, but while renaming this function 
and macro to avoid a namespace collision, does it make sense to also apply 
the 128-bit math fix (mul_u64_u64_shr) here? 

The 64-bit arithmetic in rpmh_xloops_to_cycles() still wraps around the 
maximum limit for large xloops values, which appears to be the exact same 
integer overflow bug this patch successfully resolves in arch/arm64/lib/delay.c.

[ ... ]
> @@ -819,7 +819,7 @@ void rpmh_rsc_write_next_wakeup(struct rsc_drv *drv)
>  	wakeup_us = ktime_to_us(wakeup);
>  
>  	/* Convert the wakeup to arch timer scale */
> -	wakeup_cycles = USECS_TO_CYCLES(wakeup_us);
> +	wakeup_cycles = RPMH_USECS_TO_CYCLES(wakeup_us);
>  	wakeup_cycles += arch_timer_read_counter();
>  
>  exit:

[Severity: High]
This is also a pre-existing issue, but this seems to be the path where the 
overflow described above causes problems for device power management.

During system suspend, rpmh_rsc_write_next_wakeup() queries the next 
hrtimer. If the timer is roughly more than 224 seconds away (or if no 
timer exists, returning KTIME_MAX), wakeup_us can exceed the 64-bit 
mathematical limit of the inline calculation.

Does this cause an overflow of the u64 intermediate product, resulting 
in a corrupted, wrapped wakeup time being programmed into the hardware TCS, 
and leading to premature wakeups from deep sleep?

-- 
Sashiko AI review · https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260831202251.305046-1-ankur.a.arora@oracle.com?part=3

  reply	other threads:[~2026-08-31 22:06 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 36+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2026-08-31 20:22 [PATCH v15 00/16] barrier: Add smp_cond_load_{relaxed,acquire}_timeout() Ankur Arora
2026-08-31 20:22 ` [PATCH v15 01/16] asm-generic: barrier: Add smp_cond_load_relaxed_timeout() Ankur Arora
2026-08-31 21:50   ` sashiko-bot
2026-08-31 20:22 ` [PATCH v15 02/16] arm64: barrier: Support smp_cond_load_relaxed_timeout() Ankur Arora
2026-08-31 21:59   ` sashiko-bot
2026-09-01  3:55     ` Ankur Arora
2026-08-31 20:22 ` [PATCH v15 03/16] arm64/delay: move, fixup usecs_to_cycles() Ankur Arora
2026-08-31 22:06   ` sashiko-bot [this message]
2026-08-31 20:22 ` [PATCH v15 04/16] arm64: support WFET in smp_cond_load_relaxed_timeout() Ankur Arora
2026-08-31 21:16   ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-08-31 22:19   ` sashiko-bot
2026-08-31 20:22 ` [PATCH v15 05/16] arm64: rqspinlock: Remove private copy of smp_cond_load_acquire_timewait() Ankur Arora
2026-08-31 20:22 ` [PATCH v15 06/16] asm-generic: barrier: Add smp_cond_load_acquire_timeout() Ankur Arora
2026-08-31 21:17   ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-08-31 22:36   ` sashiko-bot
2026-08-31 20:22 ` [PATCH v15 07/16] atomic: Add atomic_cond_read_*_timeout() Ankur Arora
2026-08-31 21:16   ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-08-31 22:47   ` sashiko-bot
2026-08-31 20:22 ` [PATCH v15 08/16] locking/atomic: scripts: build atomic_long_cond_read_*_timeout() Ankur Arora
2026-08-31 20:22 ` [PATCH v15 09/16] bpf/rqspinlock: switch check_timeout() to a clock interface Ankur Arora
2026-08-31 21:16   ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-08-31 20:22 ` [PATCH v15 10/16] bpf/rqspinlock: Use smp_cond_load_acquire_timeout() Ankur Arora
2026-08-31 21:31   ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-08-31 20:22 ` [PATCH v15 11/16] sched: add need-resched timed wait interface Ankur Arora
2026-08-31 20:22 ` [PATCH v15 12/16] cpuidle/poll_state: Wait for need-resched via tif_need_resched_relaxed_wait() Ankur Arora
2026-08-31 23:20   ` sashiko-bot
2026-09-01  4:46     ` Ankur Arora
2026-08-31 20:22 ` [PATCH v15 13/16] arm64/delay: enable testing smp_cond_load_relaxed_timeout() Ankur Arora
2026-08-31 21:16   ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-08-31 23:28   ` sashiko-bot
2026-09-01  4:53     ` Ankur Arora
2026-08-31 20:22 ` [PATCH v15 14/16] barrier: add tests for smp_cond_load_*_timeout() Ankur Arora
2026-08-31 21:17   ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-08-31 20:22 ` [PATCH v15 15/16] barrier: timeout validity checks for smp_cond_load_relaxed_timeout() Ankur Arora
2026-08-31 21:16   ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-08-31 20:22 ` [PATCH v15 16/16] barrier: timeout validity checks for smp_cond_load_acquire_timeout() Ankur Arora

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=20260831220621.D6DA61F000E9@smtp.kernel.org \
    --to=sashiko-bot@kernel.org \
    --cc=ankur.a.arora@oracle.com \
    --cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=sashiko-reviews@lists.linux.dev \
    /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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox