All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Alistair Francis <alistair23@gmail.com>
To: "André Almeida" <andrealmeid@collabora.com>
Cc: Alistair Francis <alistair.francis@opensource.wdc.com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	linux-riscv <linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org>,
	Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org>, Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com>,
	linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org,
	Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com>,
	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@kernel.org>,
	Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>,
	Darren Hart <dvhart@infradead.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	Atish Patra <atish.patra@wdc.com>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
	Alistair Francis <alistair.francis@wdc.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] perf bench: Add support for 32-bit systems with 64-bit time_t
Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2021 14:34:12 +1000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAKmqyKM+VN-KST9-VMULZMC=2sNbjH2wiE-CZ1WRfVFj3WmpdQ@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <72990864-5ec6-1f73-efd9-61b667a172dd@collabora.com>

On Tue, Sep 21, 2021 at 8:47 AM André Almeida <andrealmeid@collabora.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Alistair,
>
> Às 03:10 de 17/09/21, Alistair Francis escreveu:
> > From: Alistair Francis <alistair.francis@wdc.com>
> >
> > Some 32-bit architectures (such are 32-bit RISC-V) only have a 64-bit
> > time_t and as such don't have the SYS_futex syscall. This patch will
> > allow us to use the SYS_futex_time64 syscall on those platforms.
> >
>
> Thanks for your patch! However, I don't think that any futex operation
> at perf has timeout. Do you plan to implement a test that use it? Or the
> idea is to get this ready for it in case someone want to do so in the
> future?

I don't have plans to implement any new tests (although I'm happy to
add one if need be).

My goal was just to get this to build for RISC-V 32-bit. The timeout
was already exposed by the old futex macro, so I was just following
that.

>
>
> Also, I faced a similar problem with the new futex2 syscalls, that
> supports exclusively 64bit timespec. But I took a different approach: I
> called __NR_clock_gettime64 for 32bit architectures so it wouldn't
> require to convert the struct:
>
> #if defined(__i386__) || __TIMESIZE == 32
> # define NR_gettime64 __NR_clock_gettime64
> #else
> # define NR_gettime64 __NR_clock_gettime
> #endif
>
> struct timespec64 {
>         long long tv_sec;       /* seconds */
>         long long tv_nsec;      /* nanoseconds */
> };
>
> int gettime64(clock_t clockid, struct timespec64 *tv)
> {
>         return syscall(NR_gettime64, clockid, tv);
> }
>
> Then we can just use &timeout at __NR_futex_time64 for 32bit arch and at
> __NR_futex for 64bit arch.

So the idea is to use 64-bit time_t everywhere and only work on 5.1+ kernels.

If that's the favoured approach I can convert this series to your idea.

Alistair

>
> This might be a simpler solution to the problem that you are facing but
> I'm not entirely sure. Also, futex's selftests do use the timeout
> argument and I think that they also won't compile in 32-bit RISC-V, so
> maybe we can start from there so we can actually test the timeout
> argument and check if it's working.
>
> Thanks,
>         André

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID
From: Alistair Francis <alistair23@gmail.com>
To: "André Almeida" <andrealmeid@collabora.com>
Cc: Alistair Francis <alistair.francis@opensource.wdc.com>,
	 Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	 linux-riscv <linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org>,
	Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org>,  Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com>,
	linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org,
	 Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com>,
	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
	 Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@kernel.org>,
	Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>,
	Darren Hart <dvhart@infradead.org>,
	 Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
	 Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	Atish Patra <atish.patra@wdc.com>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
	Alistair Francis <alistair.francis@wdc.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] perf bench: Add support for 32-bit systems with 64-bit time_t
Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2021 14:34:12 +1000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAKmqyKM+VN-KST9-VMULZMC=2sNbjH2wiE-CZ1WRfVFj3WmpdQ@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <72990864-5ec6-1f73-efd9-61b667a172dd@collabora.com>

On Tue, Sep 21, 2021 at 8:47 AM André Almeida <andrealmeid@collabora.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Alistair,
>
> Às 03:10 de 17/09/21, Alistair Francis escreveu:
> > From: Alistair Francis <alistair.francis@wdc.com>
> >
> > Some 32-bit architectures (such are 32-bit RISC-V) only have a 64-bit
> > time_t and as such don't have the SYS_futex syscall. This patch will
> > allow us to use the SYS_futex_time64 syscall on those platforms.
> >
>
> Thanks for your patch! However, I don't think that any futex operation
> at perf has timeout. Do you plan to implement a test that use it? Or the
> idea is to get this ready for it in case someone want to do so in the
> future?

I don't have plans to implement any new tests (although I'm happy to
add one if need be).

My goal was just to get this to build for RISC-V 32-bit. The timeout
was already exposed by the old futex macro, so I was just following
that.

>
>
> Also, I faced a similar problem with the new futex2 syscalls, that
> supports exclusively 64bit timespec. But I took a different approach: I
> called __NR_clock_gettime64 for 32bit architectures so it wouldn't
> require to convert the struct:
>
> #if defined(__i386__) || __TIMESIZE == 32
> # define NR_gettime64 __NR_clock_gettime64
> #else
> # define NR_gettime64 __NR_clock_gettime
> #endif
>
> struct timespec64 {
>         long long tv_sec;       /* seconds */
>         long long tv_nsec;      /* nanoseconds */
> };
>
> int gettime64(clock_t clockid, struct timespec64 *tv)
> {
>         return syscall(NR_gettime64, clockid, tv);
> }
>
> Then we can just use &timeout at __NR_futex_time64 for 32bit arch and at
> __NR_futex for 64bit arch.

So the idea is to use 64-bit time_t everywhere and only work on 5.1+ kernels.

If that's the favoured approach I can convert this series to your idea.

Alistair

>
> This might be a simpler solution to the problem that you are facing but
> I'm not entirely sure. Also, futex's selftests do use the timeout
> argument and I think that they also won't compile in 32-bit RISC-V, so
> maybe we can start from there so we can actually test the timeout
> argument and check if it's working.
>
> Thanks,
>         André

_______________________________________________
linux-riscv mailing list
linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-riscv

  parent reply	other threads:[~2021-09-24  4:34 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 26+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-09-17  6:10 [PATCH v3 1/2] perf benchmark: Call the futex syscall from a function Alistair Francis
2021-09-17  6:10 ` Alistair Francis
2021-09-17  6:10 ` [PATCH v3 2/2] perf bench: Add support for 32-bit systems with 64-bit time_t Alistair Francis
2021-09-17  6:10   ` Alistair Francis
2021-09-17  7:33   ` Arnd Bergmann
2021-09-17  7:33     ` Arnd Bergmann
2021-09-17 18:33   ` Davidlohr Bueso
2021-09-17 18:33     ` Davidlohr Bueso
2021-09-20 22:47   ` André Almeida
2021-09-20 22:47     ` André Almeida
2021-09-21  8:08     ` Arnd Bergmann
2021-09-21  8:08       ` Arnd Bergmann
2021-09-21 23:06       ` André Almeida
2021-09-21 23:06         ` André Almeida
2021-09-22 11:26         ` Arnd Bergmann
2021-09-22 11:26           ` Arnd Bergmann
2021-09-22 11:27         ` Arnd Bergmann
2021-09-22 11:27           ` Arnd Bergmann
2021-09-24  4:34       ` Alistair Francis
2021-09-24  4:34         ` Alistair Francis
2021-09-24  4:34     ` Alistair Francis [this message]
2021-09-24  4:34       ` Alistair Francis
2021-09-26 21:32       ` André Almeida
2021-09-26 21:32         ` André Almeida
2021-09-17 18:21 ` [PATCH v3 1/2] perf benchmark: Call the futex syscall from a function Davidlohr Bueso
2021-09-17 18:21   ` Davidlohr Bueso

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to='CAKmqyKM+VN-KST9-VMULZMC=2sNbjH2wiE-CZ1WRfVFj3WmpdQ@mail.gmail.com' \
    --to=alistair23@gmail.com \
    --cc=acme@kernel.org \
    --cc=alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=alistair.francis@opensource.wdc.com \
    --cc=alistair.francis@wdc.com \
    --cc=andrealmeid@collabora.com \
    --cc=arnd@arndb.de \
    --cc=atish.patra@wdc.com \
    --cc=dave@stgolabs.net \
    --cc=dvhart@infradead.org \
    --cc=jolsa@redhat.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
    --cc=mingo@redhat.com \
    --cc=namhyung@kernel.org \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    --subject='Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] perf bench: Add support for 32-bit systems with 64-bit time_t' \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link

This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.