linux-kernel - Re: Linux 3.1-rc9

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 18 Oct 2011 00:03:21 +0200
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Cc:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Simon Kirby <sim@...tway.ca>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>,
	Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Linux 3.1-rc9


* Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> wrote:

> > > In particular we could try something like:
> > > 
> > > 	(high*2^32 + low)/1e9 ~==  ( high * (2^64/1e9) ) / 2^32
> > > 
> > > ... which reduces it all to a 64-bit multiplication (or two 
> > > 32-bit multiplications) with a known constant, at the cost of 1 
> > > nsec imprecision of the result - but that's an OK approximation 
> > > in my opinion.
> > > 
> > 
> > We can do much better than that with reciprocal multiplication.
> 
> Yes, 2^64/1e9 is the reciprocal.

So basically, to extend on the pseudocode above, we could do the 
equivalent of:

/* 2^64/1e9: */
#define MAGIC 18446744073ULL

        secs_fast = ((nsecs >> 32) * MAGIC) >> 32;
        secs_fast += (nsecs & 0xFFFFFFFF)/1000000000;

to get to the precise 'timeval.secs' field - these are all 32-bit 
operations: a 32-bit multiplication and a 32-bit division if i 
counted it right.

(Likewise we can get the remainder as well, for timeval.nsecs.)

So I think if we add 32-bit optimized reciprocal multiplication based 
timeval and timespec routines, we can change ktime_t to a simple 
scalar type on 64-bit and 32-bit architectures alike.

It would likely be faster as well: the 32-bit ktime operations are 
more complex than straightforward u64 operations.

Thomas, what do you think?

Thanks,

	Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/