public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@goop.org>
To: Segher Boessenkool <segher@kernel.crashing.org>
Cc: Robert Hancock <hancockr@shaw.ca>,
	Christian Kujau <lists@nerdbynature.de>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Subject: Re: undefined reference to __udivdi3 (gcc-4.3)
Date: Wed, 07 May 2008 10:29:24 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <48217674.8080903@goop.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <a6dd201e0149f8dbdf10a7a194673833@kernel.crashing.org>

Segher Boessenkool wrote:
>> I assume it's one or both of these loops in arch/x86/xen/time.c 
>> do_stolen_accounting() that are being optimized into a divide which 
>> generates a libgcc call:
>>
>>     while (stolen >= NS_PER_TICK) {
>>         ticks++;
>>         stolen -= NS_PER_TICK;
>>     }
>>
>> or
>>
>>     while (blocked >= NS_PER_TICK) {
>>         ticks++;
>>         blocked -= NS_PER_TICK;
>>     }
>
> That looks plausible.

Yep.  Probably both.

>> Not sure if that is a sustainable fix, though..
>
> It should be.  The asm() arg tells GCC that the asm() could modify
> "ns" in some way, so GCC cannot optimise away the loop, since it
> doesn't have the required info about the induction variable to do
> that. 

Yep, it's guaranteed to work.  But it's an ugly hack to work around an 
over-enthusiastic compiler, and so is an inherent maintainability burden.

I think the correct fix here is to introduce an iter_div_rem() function 
which contains this hack, so we can avoid scattering it all over the 
place.  I'll cook up a patch.

    J

  reply	other threads:[~2008-05-07  9:29 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
     [not found] <fa.QTbvQYXhEm5VNP5dvkl5JG7NHYQ@ifi.uio.no>
2008-05-04 17:35 ` undefined reference to __udivdi3 (gcc-4.3) Robert Hancock
2008-05-04 22:19   ` Segher Boessenkool
2008-05-07  9:29     ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge [this message]
2008-05-08 15:16       ` [PATCH] common implementation of iterative div/mod Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2008-05-08 20:26         ` Andrew Morton
2008-05-08 22:00           ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2008-05-08 20:52         ` Segher Boessenkool
2008-05-08 21:57           ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2008-05-09 11:45         ` Christian Kujau
2008-05-14  6:46         ` Andrew Morton
2008-05-14  7:33           ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2008-05-14  8:33             ` Andi Kleen
2008-05-14  9:55               ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2008-05-14 10:50                 ` Andi Kleen
2008-05-14 10:52                   ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2008-05-14 11:21                     ` Andi Kleen
2008-05-14 12:58                       ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2008-05-04 10:59 undefined reference to __udivdi3 (gcc-4.3) Christian Kujau

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=48217674.8080903@goop.org \
    --to=jeremy@goop.org \
    --cc=hancockr@shaw.ca \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=lists@nerdbynature.de \
    --cc=mingo@elte.hu \
    --cc=segher@kernel.crashing.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