[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20161209044849.GY3045@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2016 05:48:49 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>,
David Gibson <david@...son.dropbear.id.au>,
Liav Rehana <liavr@...lanox.com>,
Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@...lanox.com>,
Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com>,
Parit Bhargava <prarit@...hat.com>,
Laurent Vivier <lvivier@...hat.com>,
"Christopher S. Hall" <christopher.s.hall@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [patch 5/6] [RFD] timekeeping: Provide optional 128bit math
On Fri, Dec 09, 2016 at 05:08:26AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > +#if defined(CONFIG_ARCH_SUPPORTS_INT128) && defined(__SIZEOF_INT128__)
> > +static inline u64 timekeeping_delta_to_ns(struct tk_read_base *tkr, u64 delta)
> > +{
> > + unsigned __int128 nsec;
> > +
> > + nsec = ((unsigned __int128)delta * tkr->mult) + tkr->xtime_nsec;
> > + return (u64) (nsec >> tkr->shift);
> > +}
>
> Actually, 128-bit multiplication shouldn't be too horrible - at least on 64-bit
> architectures. (128-bit division is another matter, but there's no division here.)
IIRC there are 64bit architectures that do not have a 64x64->128 mult,
only a 64x64->64 mult instruction. Its not immediately apparent using
__int128 will generate optimal code for those, nor is it a given GCC
will not require libgcc functions for those.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists