From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>
To: Gabriel Paubert <paubert@iram.es>
Cc: Yoann Vandoorselaere <yoann@prelude-ids.org>,
<cpufreq@lists.arm.linux.org.uk>, <cpufreq@www.linux.org.uk>,
<linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH]: fix 32bits integer overflow in loops_per_jiffy calculation
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 16:31:15 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20020822143115.15323@192.168.4.1> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <3D64D51C.9040603@iram.es>
>Well, first on sane archs which have an easily accessible, fixed
>frequency time counter, loops_per_jiffy should never have existed :-)
>
>Second, putting this code there means that one day somebody will
>inevitably try to use it outside of its domain of operation (like it
>happened for div64 a few months ago when I pointed out that it would not
>work for divisors above 65535 or so).
Well... it's clearly located inside kernel/cpufreq.c, so there is
little risk, though it may be worth a big bold comment
>Finally, I agree that we should not import libgcc, but for example on
>PPC32 the double lengths shifts (__ashrdi3, __ashldi3, and __lshsldi3)
>are implemented somewhere, and the assembly implementation (directly
>taken from some appendix in PPC documentation, I just slightly twisted
>__ashrdi3 to make it branchless AFAIR) is actually way faster than the
>one in libgcc ;-), and less than half the size.
>
> Adding a few subroutines that implement a subset of libgcc's
>functionality is necessary for most archs (which functions are needed is
>arch, and sometimes compiler's, dependent).
>
>In this case a generic scaling function, while not a standard libgcc/C
>library feature has potentially more applications than this simple
>cpufreq approximation. But I don't see very much the need for scaling a
>long (64 bit on 64 bit archs) value, 32 bit would be sufficient.
Well... if you can write one, go on then ;) In my case, I'm happy
with Yoann implementation for cpufreq right now. Though I agree that
could ultimately be moved to arch code.
Ben.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2002-08-22 12:26 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2002-08-22 13:02 [PATCH]: fix 32bits integer overflow in loops_per_jiffy calculation Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2002-08-22 12:12 ` Gabriel Paubert
2002-08-22 14:31 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt [this message]
2002-08-22 15:23 ` Gabriel Paubert
2002-08-22 15:59 ` Yoann Vandoorselaere
2002-08-22 17:22 ` [PATCH]: fix 32bits integer overflow in loops_per_jiffycalculation george anzinger
2002-08-22 16:51 ` [PATCH]: fix 32bits integer overflow in loops_per_jiffy calculation Dominik Brodowski
2002-08-22 19:35 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2002-08-22 17:46 ` Dominik Brodowski
2002-08-22 18:02 ` Yoann Vandoorselaere
2002-08-22 20:00 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2002-08-22 9:50 Yoann Vandoorselaere
2002-08-22 10:21 ` Gabriel Paubert
2002-08-22 13:00 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
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=20020822143115.15323@192.168.4.1 \
--to=benh@kernel.crashing.org \
--cc=cpufreq@lists.arm.linux.org.uk \
--cc=cpufreq@www.linux.org.uk \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=paubert@iram.es \
--cc=yoann@prelude-ids.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox