linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 4/5] clocksource: Enable clocksource

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:	Thu, 7 Mar 2013 00:26:33 +0800
From:	Feng Tang <feng.tang@...el.com>
To:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc:	John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...ux.intel.com>,
	Jason Gunthorpe <jgunthorpe@...idianresearch.com>,
	x86@...nel.org, Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, gong.chen@...ux.intel.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 4/5] clocksource: Enable clocksource_cyc2ns() to cover
 big cycles

On Wed, Mar 06, 2013 at 05:10:53PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Wed, 6 Mar 2013, Feng Tang wrote:
> > Hi Thomas,
> > 
> > Thanks for the reviews.
> > 
> > On Wed, Mar 06, 2013 at 03:09:26PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > > On Wed, 6 Mar 2013, Feng Tang wrote:
> > > 
> > > > Current clocksource_cyc2ns() has a implicit limit that the (cycles * mult)
> > > > can not exceed 64 bits limit. Jason Gunthorpe proposed a way to
> > > > handle this big cycles case, and this patch put the handling into
> > > > clocksource_cyc2ns() so that it could be used unconditionally.
> > > 
> > > Could be used if it wouldn't break the world and some more.
> > 
> > Exactly.
> > 
> > One excuse I can think of is usually the clocksource_cyc2ns() will be called
> > for cycles less than 600 seconds, based on which the "mult" and "shift" are
> > calculated for a clocksource.
> 
> That's not an excuse for making even the build fail on ARM and other
> 32bit archs.

That's a huge mistake I made in my patch, and I didn't meant to excuse for it :)

> > 
> > trying to avoid expensieve maths. But as Jason pointed, there is some accuracy
> > lost. 
> 
> Right, but if you precalculate the max_fast_cycles value you can avoid
> at least the division in the fast path and then do
> 
>    if (cycles > max_fast_cycles)
>       return clocksource_cyc2ns_slow();
>    return ((u64) cycles * mult) >> shift;	      
> 
> clocksource_cyc2ns_slow() should be out of line and there you can do
> all the slow 64 bit operations. That keeps the fast path sane and we
> don't need extra magic for the large cycle values.

Yeah! This should well cover all possilbe cycles and solve the fast/slow
problem. Thanks. Will try to make a new patch.

- Feng

--
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/