* roundup_pow_of_two() may not handle 64-bit integers
@ 2014-05-15 2:22 Brian Norris
2014-05-15 15:03 ` David Howells
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Brian Norris @ 2014-05-15 2:22 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Linux Kernel
Cc: David Howells, Paul Mackerras, Andrew Morton, Brian Norris,
linuxppc-dev
Hi,
I'm looking to use roundup_pow_of_two() (actually, order_base_2())
from <linux/log2.h>, but it seems that it only supports 64-bit integers
if your toolchain uses a 64-bit 'unsigned long' type. This is strange,
considering that ilog2() is explicitly designed for 32-bit or 64-bit
compatibility.
I also note that there is at least one location in which this limitation
currently might be problematic: in pnv_pci_ioda2_set_bypass()
(arch/powerpc/platforms/powernv/pci-ioda.c). It looks like this could be
a problem if using large amounts of DRAM on a 32-bit PPC build, with
64-bit physical addresses.
(There may be other cases like this one, but I haven't closely studied
all callers of roundup_pow_of_two().)
I'm thinking of cooking a patch to improve roundup_pow_of_two() (and
thus order_base_2()), but I'd like to solicit comments on the basic
problem first.
Regards,
Brian
P.S. And of course, rounddown_pow_of_two() has the same issue.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: roundup_pow_of_two() may not handle 64-bit integers
2014-05-15 2:22 roundup_pow_of_two() may not handle 64-bit integers Brian Norris
@ 2014-05-15 15:03 ` David Howells
2014-05-15 19:44 ` Brian Norris
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: David Howells @ 2014-05-15 15:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Brian Norris
Cc: Linux Kernel, dhowells, Paul Mackerras, Andrew Morton,
linuxppc-dev
Brian Norris <computersforpeace@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm looking to use roundup_pow_of_two() (actually, order_base_2())
> from <linux/log2.h>, but it seems that it only supports 64-bit integers
> if your toolchain uses a 64-bit 'unsigned long' type. This is strange,
> considering that ilog2() is explicitly designed for 32-bit or 64-bit
> compatibility.
ilog2() was explicitly designed for use with 'unsigned long'. See the commit
description (f0d1b0b30d250a07627ad8b9fbbb5c7cc08422e8). It may work with
unsigned long long, however...
David
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: roundup_pow_of_two() may not handle 64-bit integers
2014-05-15 15:03 ` David Howells
@ 2014-05-15 19:44 ` Brian Norris
0 siblings, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Brian Norris @ 2014-05-15 19:44 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: David Howells; +Cc: Andrew Morton, linuxppc-dev, Paul Mackerras, Linux Kernel
On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 04:03:09PM +0100, David Howells wrote:
> Brian Norris <computersforpeace@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I'm looking to use roundup_pow_of_two() (actually, order_base_2())
> > from <linux/log2.h>, but it seems that it only supports 64-bit integers
> > if your toolchain uses a 64-bit 'unsigned long' type. This is strange,
> > considering that ilog2() is explicitly designed for 32-bit or 64-bit
> > compatibility.
>
> ilog2() was explicitly designed for use with 'unsigned long'. See the commit
> description (f0d1b0b30d250a07627ad8b9fbbb5c7cc08422e8). It may work with
> unsigned long long, however...
That's another confusing point; the commit description says 'unsigned
long', but the code shows nothing of that sort, and the comments say
nearly the reverse (mentioning '32-bit and 64-bit', not 'unsigned
long'). The code only referenes ULL constants, and it selects a 32-bit
or 64-bit runtime version based on the type. To me, this demonstrates an
explicit design for "32-bit or 64-bit", regardless of the dimensions of
your 'long'.
So this leaves me with 2 main issues:
(1) Can we make <linux/ilog2.h> have some sense of consistency? If so,
how?
- Enforce the 'unsigned long' design (i.e., don't support
ilog2(u64) when sizeof(unsigned long) == 4)?
- Make all high-level macros automatically support 32-bit or 64-bit,
regardless of type?
- Split out 32-bit vs. 64-bit functions for everything?
Obviously some of these options are sillier than others.
(2) Powerpc (and maybe some of SH's PCI) code has a potential bug, due
to using roundup_pow_of_two() on type phys_addr_t, which could
overflow for LPAE systems with large physical memory ranges. Is this
a legitimate concern?
Brian
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2014-05-15 19:44 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2014-05-15 2:22 roundup_pow_of_two() may not handle 64-bit integers Brian Norris
2014-05-15 15:03 ` David Howells
2014-05-15 19:44 ` Brian Norris
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox