[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20250722175807.GC2845@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2025 19:58:08 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Cc: David Laight <david.laight.linux@...il.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
"Li,Rongqing" <lirongqing@...du.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
x86@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/math64: handle #DE in mul_u64_u64_div_u64()
On 07/22, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>
> On July 22, 2025 3:50:35 AM PDT, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com> wrote:
> >
> >The generic implementation doesn't WARN... OK, I won't argue.
> >How about
> >
> > static inline u64 mul_u64_u64_div_u64(u64 a, u64 mul, u64 div)
> > {
> > char ok = 0;
> > u64 q;
> >
> > asm ("mulq %3; 1: divq %4; movb $1,%1; 2:\n"
> > _ASM_EXTABLE(1b, 2b)
> > : "=a" (q), "+r" (ok)
> > : "a" (a), "rm" (mul), "rm" (div)
> > : "rdx");
> >
> > if (ok)
> > return q;
> > BUG_ON(!div);
> > WARN_ON_ONCE(1);
> > return ~(u64)0;
> > }
> >
> >?
> >
> >Oleg.
>
> Maybe the generic version *should* warn?
David is going to change the generic version to WARN.
> As far as the ok output, the Right Way™ to do it is with an asm goto instead
> of a status variable; the second best tends to be to use the flags output.
This is what I was going to do initially. But this needs
CONFIG_CC_HAS_ASM_GOTO_OUTPUT
Oleg.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists