[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4782BAED.7060102@zytor.com>
Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2008 15:51:09 -0800
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
CC: David Fries <david@...es.net>, tglx@...utronix.de,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] system timer: fix crash in <100Hz system timer
Andrew Morton wrote:
>>
>> diff --git a/include/linux/acct.h b/include/linux/acct.h
>> index 302eb72..86b848d 100644
>> --- a/include/linux/acct.h
>> +++ b/include/linux/acct.h
>> @@ -173,7 +173,11 @@ typedef struct acct acct_t;
>> static inline u32 jiffies_to_AHZ(unsigned long x)
>> {
>> #if (TICK_NSEC % (NSEC_PER_SEC / AHZ)) == 0
>> - return x / (HZ / AHZ);
>> + #if HZ < AHZ
>> + return x * (AHZ / HZ);
>> + #else
>> + return x / (HZ / AHZ);
>> + #endif
>> #else
>> u64 tmp = (u64)x * TICK_NSEC;
>> do_div(tmp, (NSEC_PER_SEC / AHZ));
>> diff --git a/kernel/time.c b/kernel/time.c
>> index 09d3c45..23af26f 100644
>> --- a/kernel/time.c
>> +++ b/kernel/time.c
>> @@ -565,7 +565,11 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(jiffies_to_timeval);
>> clock_t jiffies_to_clock_t(long x)
>> {
>> #if (TICK_NSEC % (NSEC_PER_SEC / USER_HZ)) == 0
>> + #if HZ < USER_HZ
>> + return x * (USER_HZ / HZ);
>> + #else
>> return x / (HZ / USER_HZ);
>> + #endif
>> #else
>> u64 tmp = (u64)x * TICK_NSEC;
>> do_div(tmp, (NSEC_PER_SEC / USER_HZ));
>> @@ -598,7 +602,12 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(clock_t_to_jiffies);
>> u64 jiffies_64_to_clock_t(u64 x)
>> {
>> #if (TICK_NSEC % (NSEC_PER_SEC / USER_HZ)) == 0
>> - do_div(x, HZ / USER_HZ);
>> + #if HZ < USER_HZ
>> + x *= USER_HZ;
>> + do_div(x, HZ);
>> + #else
>> + do_div(x, HZ / USER_HZ);
>> + #endif
>> #else
>> /*
>> * There are better ways that don't overflow early,
>
> Alas, I get 100% rejects due to conflicting changes from Peter's
> avoid-overflows-in-kernel-timec.patch.
>
> Peter, did that patch propagate this failure, or might it have happily
> fixed it?
>
My patch doesn't touch any of these functions, nor touches any code
within 70 lines of this patch -- the last line touched is line 478 --
and doesn't touch linux/acct.h at all, so how could it cause a conflict?
But no, it doesn't fix this particular problem, even if using a similar
technique might very well be a better way to do this kind of conversion.
-hpa
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists