Message-ID: <20251031201219.63dafab7@pumpkin>
Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2025 20:12:19 +0000
From: David Laight <david.laight.linux@...il.com>
To: Nicolas Pitre <npitre@...libre.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 u.kleine-koenig@...libre.com, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>, Peter
 Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Biju Das <biju.das.jz@...renesas.com>,
 Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
 "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Thomas
 Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Li RongQing <lirongqing@...du.com>, Yu Kuai
 <yukuai3@...wei.com>, Khazhismel Kumykov <khazhy@...omium.org>, Jens Axboe
 <axboe@...nel.dk>, x86@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 next 3/9] lib: mul_u64_u64_div_u64() simplify check
 for a 64bit product

On Fri, 31 Oct 2025 14:45:49 -0400 (EDT)
Nicolas Pitre <npitre@...libre.com> wrote:

> On Fri, 31 Oct 2025, David Laight wrote:
> 
> > On Fri, 31 Oct 2025 13:26:41 -0400 (EDT)
> > Nicolas Pitre <npitre@...libre.com> wrote:
> >   
> > > On Fri, 31 Oct 2025, David Laight wrote:
> > >   
> > > > On Wed, 29 Oct 2025 14:11:08 -0400 (EDT)
> > > > Nicolas Pitre <npitre@...libre.com> wrote:
> > > >     
> > > > > On Wed, 29 Oct 2025, David Laight wrote:
> > > > >     
> > > > > > If the product is only 64bits div64_u64() can be used for the divide.
> > > > > > Replace the pre-multiply check (ilog2(a) + ilog2(b) <= 62) with a
> > > > > > simple post-multiply check that the high 64bits are zero.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > This has the advantage of being simpler, more accurate and less code.
> > > > > > It will always be faster when the product is larger than 64bits.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Most 64bit cpu have a native 64x64=128 bit multiply, this is needed
> > > > > > (for the low 64bits) even when div64_u64() is called - so the early
> > > > > > check gains nothing and is just extra code.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 32bit cpu will need a compare (etc) to generate the 64bit ilog2()
> > > > > > from two 32bit bit scans - so that is non-trivial.
> > > > > > (Never mind the mess of x86's 'bsr' and any oddball cpu without
> > > > > > fast bit-scan instructions.)
> > > > > > Whereas the additional instructions for the 128bit multiply result
> > > > > > are pretty much one multiply and two adds (typically the 'adc $0,%reg'
> > > > > > can be run in parallel with the instruction that follows).
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > The only outliers are 64bit systems without 128bit mutiply and
> > > > > > simple in order 32bit ones with fast bit scan but needing extra
> > > > > > instructions to get the high bits of the multiply result.
> > > > > > I doubt it makes much difference to either, the latter is definitely
> > > > > > not mainstream.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > If anyone is worried about the analysis they can look at the
> > > > > > generated code for x86 (especially when cmov isn't used).
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Signed-off-by: David Laight <david.laight.linux@...il.com>      
> > > > > 
> > > > > Comment below.
> > > > > 
> > > > >     
> > > > > > ---
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Split from patch 3 for v2, unchanged since.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > >  lib/math/div64.c | 6 +++---
> > > > > >  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > diff --git a/lib/math/div64.c b/lib/math/div64.c
> > > > > > index 1092f41e878e..7158d141b6e9 100644
> > > > > > --- a/lib/math/div64.c
> > > > > > +++ b/lib/math/div64.c
> > > > > > @@ -186,9 +186,6 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(iter_div_u64_rem);
> > > > > >  #ifndef mul_u64_u64_div_u64
> > > > > >  u64 mul_u64_u64_div_u64(u64 a, u64 b, u64 d)
> > > > > >  {
> > > > > > -	if (ilog2(a) + ilog2(b) <= 62)
> > > > > > -		return div64_u64(a * b, d);
> > > > > > -
> > > > > >  #if defined(__SIZEOF_INT128__)
> > > > > >  
> > > > > >  	/* native 64x64=128 bits multiplication */
> > > > > > @@ -224,6 +221,9 @@ u64 mul_u64_u64_div_u64(u64 a, u64 b, u64 d)
> > > > > >  		return ~0ULL;
> > > > > >  	}
> > > > > >  
> > > > > > +	if (!n_hi)
> > > > > > +		return div64_u64(n_lo, d);      
> > > > > 
> > > > > I'd move this before the overflow test. If this is to be taken then 
> > > > > you'll save one test. same cost otherwise.
> > > > >     
> > > > 
> > > > I wanted the 'divide by zero' result to be consistent.    
> > > 
> > > It is. div64_u64(x, 0) will produce the same result/behavior.  
> > 
> > Are you sure, for all architectures?  
> 
> At least all the ones I'm familiar with.
> 
> > >   
> > > > Additionally the change to stop the x86-64 version panicking on
> > > > overflow also makes it return ~0 for divide by zero.
> > > > If that is done then this version needs to be consistent and
> > > > return ~0 for divide by zero - which div64_u64() won't do.    
> > > 
> > > Well here I disagree. If that is some x86 peculiarity then x86 should 
> > > deal with it and not impose it on everybody. At least having most other 
> > > architectures raising SIGFPE when encountering a divide by 0 should 
> > > provide enough coverage to have such obviously buggy code fixed.  
> > 
> > The issue here is that crashing the kernel isn't really acceptable.  
> 
> Encountering a div-by-0 _will_ crash the kernel (or at least kill the 
> current task) with most CPUs. They do raise an exception already with 
> the other division types. This is no different.
> 
> > An extra parameter could be added to return the 'status',
> > but that makes the calling interface horrid.  
> 
> No please.
> 
> > So returning ~0 on overflow and divide-by-zero makes it possible
> > for the caller to check for errors.  
> 
> The caller should check for a possible zero divisor _before_ performing 
> a division not after. Relying on the div-by_0 CPU behavior is a bug.
> 
> > Ok, you lose ~0 as a valid result - but that is very unlikely to
> > need to be treated differently to 'overflow'.  
> 
> I disagree. You need to check for a zero divisor up front and not rely 
> on the division to tell you about it.  This is true whether you do
> a = b/c; a = div64_u64(b, c); or a = mul_u64_u64_div_u64(a, b, c);.
> Most architectures will simply raise an exception if you attempt a div 
> by 0, some will return a plain 0. You can't rely on that.
> 
> But you need to perform the mul+div before you know there is an 
> overflow. Maybe the handling of those cases is the same for the caller 
> but this is certainly not universal.

Anyway this is all pretty much irrelevant for this patch.

	David

> 
> 
> Nicolas

Powered by blists - more mailing lists