public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Brian Behlendorf <behlendorf1@llnl.gov>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Make div64_u64() precise on 32bit platforms
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2010 10:46:42 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1287683202.16680.44.camel@pip> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20101014121159.GA407@redhat.com>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1995 bytes --]

> > > +	if (divisor >> 32 == 0) {
> > > +		if (dividend >> 32 < divisor) {
> > > +			return div_u64_rem(dividend, divisor, &rem);
> > > +		} else {
> > > +			u0 = dividend & 0xFFFFFFFF;
> > > +			quot1 = div_u64_rem(dividend >> 32, divisor, &rem);
> > > +			u0 += ((u64)rem << 32);
> > > +			quot0 = div_u64_rem(u0, divisor, &rem);
> > > +			return (quot1 << 32) + quot0;
> > > +		}
> >
> > Looks correct... but I can't understand these complications.
> > Looks like we can just do
> >
> > 	if ((divisor >> 32) == 0) {
> > 		div_u64(dividend, divisor);
> > 	} else {
> > 	...
> >
> > No?

The idea here, as described in the formal proof, is to cleanly handle
the overflow case.  When I implemented this I assumed the overflow case
would in fact be a problem.  To my surprise your right it doesn't seem
to be causing any trouble.  In practice I can't find any cases where it
is a problem on i386.

> > I can't understand this "dividend >> 1". It seems to me that
> >
> > 		quot1 = div_u64(dividend, (divisor << n) >> 32);
> > 		quot0 = (quot1 << n) >> 32;
> >
> > should be equally correct. Or I missed some overflow?
> 
> Thinking more about this with a fresh head, we don't event need quot1,
> unless I missed something. We can do
> 
> 		quot0 = div_u64((dividend << n) >> 32, (divisor << n) >> 32);
> 
> instead. Or, better,
> 
> 		n = 32 - __builtin_clzll(divisor);
> 		quot0 = div_u64(dividend >> n, divisor >> n);
> 
> And 32 - clzll == fls.

Once again, the extra complexity was only there to handle to overflow
case.

> So, I think it can be really trivial, see the test-case below,
> seems to work (you need 64bit machine to test).
> 
> What do you think? I do not trust my math skills.

I think we should use your simpler version.  There's no good reason to
make this more complicated than it needs to be.  I haven't been able to
find a test case where your changes get the wrong result.

The updated patch is against linux-2.6.35 and passes all the previous
test cases.

Thanks,
Brian

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/x-patch, Size: 3572 bytes --]

>From 35755c57cb45f7d30abcd88a8e2fc1ccc5beecfd Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Brian Behlendorf <behlendorf1@llnl.gov>
Date: Thu, 5 Aug 2010 14:59:11 -0700
Subject: [PATCH] Fix div64_u64 for 32bit platforms

The current implementation of div64_u64 for 32bit systems returns
an approximately correct result when the divisor exceeds 32bits.
Since doing 64bit division using 32bit hardware is a long since
solved problem we just use one of the existing proven methods.

Additionally, add a div64_s64 function to correctly handle doing
signed 64bit division.
---
 include/linux/kernel.h |    5 ++++
 include/linux/math64.h |   12 +++++++++++
 lib/div64.c            |   52 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------
 3 files changed, 59 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)

diff --git a/include/linux/kernel.h b/include/linux/kernel.h
index 8317ec4..ed6371c 100644
--- a/include/linux/kernel.h
+++ b/include/linux/kernel.h
@@ -162,6 +162,11 @@ extern int _cond_resched(void);
 		(__x < 0) ? -__x : __x;		\
 	})
 
+#define abs64(x) ({				\
+		s64 __x = (x);			\
+		(__x < 0) ? -__x : __x;		\
+	})
+
 #ifdef CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING
 void might_fault(void);
 #else
diff --git a/include/linux/math64.h b/include/linux/math64.h
index c87f152..23fcdfc 100644
--- a/include/linux/math64.h
+++ b/include/linux/math64.h
@@ -35,6 +35,14 @@ static inline u64 div64_u64(u64 dividend, u64 divisor)
 	return dividend / divisor;
 }
 
+/**
+ * div64_s64 - signed 64bit divide with 64bit divisor
+ */
+static inline s64 div64_s64(s64 dividend, s64 divisor)
+{
+	return dividend / divisor;
+}
+
 #elif BITS_PER_LONG == 32
 
 #ifndef div_u64_rem
@@ -53,6 +61,10 @@ extern s64 div_s64_rem(s64 dividend, s32 divisor, s32 *remainder);
 extern u64 div64_u64(u64 dividend, u64 divisor);
 #endif
 
+#ifndef div64_s64
+extern s64 div64_s64(s64 dividend, s64 divisor);
+#endif
+
 #endif /* BITS_PER_LONG */
 
 /**
diff --git a/lib/div64.c b/lib/div64.c
index a111eb8..5b49191 100644
--- a/lib/div64.c
+++ b/lib/div64.c
@@ -77,26 +77,58 @@ s64 div_s64_rem(s64 dividend, s32 divisor, s32 *remainder)
 EXPORT_SYMBOL(div_s64_rem);
 #endif
 
-/* 64bit divisor, dividend and result. dynamic precision */
+/**
+ * div64_u64 - unsigned 64bit divide with 64bit divisor
+ * @dividend:	64bit dividend
+ * @divisor:	64bit divisor
+ *
+ * This implementation is a modified version of the algorithm proposed
+ * by the book 'Hacker's Delight'.  The original source and full proof
+ * can be found here and is available for use without restriction.
+ *
+ * 'http://www.hackersdelight.org/HDcode/newCode/divDouble.c'
+ */
 #ifndef div64_u64
 u64 div64_u64(u64 dividend, u64 divisor)
 {
-	u32 high, d;
+	u32 high = divisor >> 32;
+	u64 quot;
 
-	high = divisor >> 32;
-	if (high) {
-		unsigned int shift = fls(high);
+	if (high == 0) {
+		quot = div_u64(dividend, divisor);
+	} else {
+		int n = 1 + fls(high);
+		quot = div_u64(dividend >> n, divisor >> n);
 
-		d = divisor >> shift;
-		dividend >>= shift;
-	} else
-		d = divisor;
+		if (quot != 0)
+			quot--;
+		if ((dividend - quot * divisor) >= divisor)
+			quot++;
+	}
 
-	return div_u64(dividend, d);
+	return quot;
 }
 EXPORT_SYMBOL(div64_u64);
 #endif
 
+/**
+ * div64_s64 - signed 64bit divide with 64bit divisor
+ * @dividend:	64bit dividend
+ * @divisor:	64bit divisor
+ */
+#ifndef div64_s64
+s64 div64_s64(s64 dividend, s64 divisor)
+{
+	s64 quot, t;
+
+	quot = div64_u64(abs64(dividend), abs64(divisor));
+	t = (dividend ^ divisor) >> 63;
+
+	return (quot ^ t) - t;
+}
+EXPORT_SYMBOL(div64_s64);
+#endif
+
 #endif /* BITS_PER_LONG == 32 */
 
 /*
-- 
1.7.1


  reply	other threads:[~2010-10-21 17:46 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2010-10-12 19:26 [PATCH] Make div64_u64() precise on 32bit platforms Brian Behlendorf
2010-10-13 21:37 ` Oleg Nesterov
2010-10-14 12:11   ` Oleg Nesterov
2010-10-21 17:46     ` Brian Behlendorf [this message]
2010-10-21 18:12       ` Oleg Nesterov
2010-10-21 19:22         ` Andrew Morton
2010-10-21 19:49           ` Oleg Nesterov
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2010-08-02 16:09 [PATCH] trivial, document that div64_u64() is not " Oleg Nesterov
2010-08-03 22:28 ` Andrew Morton
2010-08-09 16:30   ` [PATCH] Make div64_u64() " Brian Behlendorf
2010-09-17  0:00     ` Oleg Nesterov

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=1287683202.16680.44.camel@pip \
    --to=behlendorf1@llnl.gov \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=oleg@redhat.com \
    /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