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
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-09-24 4:34 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ 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 ` [PATCH v3 2/2] perf bench: Add support for 32-bit systems with 64-bit time_t Alistair Francis
2021-09-17 7:33 ` Arnd Bergmann
2021-09-17 18:33 ` Davidlohr Bueso
2021-09-20 22:47 ` André Almeida
2021-09-21 8:08 ` Arnd Bergmann
2021-09-21 23:06 ` André Almeida
2021-09-22 11:26 ` Arnd Bergmann
2021-09-22 11:27 ` Arnd Bergmann
2021-09-24 4:34 ` Alistair Francis
2021-09-24 4:34 ` Alistair Francis [this message]
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
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 \
/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
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).