[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20111017211951.GA8043@elte.hu>
Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2011 23:19:51 +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
* H. Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com> wrote:
> On 10/17/2011 11:49 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > Do we have some hard data on this, which we could put into comments
> > in include/linux/ktime.h and such? Older versions of GCC used to do a
> > bad job of long long handling on 32-bit systems - that might be a
> > factor in the performance figures.
> >
> > But i suspect you are right that the cost is still very much there
>
> 64/64 division is done bit by bit on most (all?) 32-bit architectures.
>
> 64/32 division can be done in hardware on some architectures, e.g. x86.
it's 64/32 division - it's the /1000000000 /1000000 /1000 divisions
in the large majority of cases, to convert between
seconds/milliseconds/microseconds and scalar nanoseconds.
the kernel-internal ktime_t in the 32-bit optimized case is:
union ktime {
s32 sec, nsec;
};
which is the same as timespec and arithmetically close to timeval,
which many ABIs use. So conversion is easy in that case - but
arithmetics gets a bit harder.
If we used a scalar 64-bit form for all kernel internal time
representations:
s64 nsecs;
then conversions back to timespec/timeval would involve dividing this
64-bit value with 1000000000 or 1000000.
Is there no faster approximation for those than bit by bit?
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.
But it's late here and math is hard - lets go shopping ;-)
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists