From: "André Almeida" <andrealmeid@collabora.com>
To: Alistair Francis <alistair23@gmail.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: Sun, 26 Sep 2021 18:32:57 -0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <a65dfe31-a355-8cf8-99d8-70ddf23c5384@collabora.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAKmqyKM+VN-KST9-VMULZMC=2sNbjH2wiE-CZ1WRfVFj3WmpdQ@mail.gmail.com>
Às 01:34 de 24/09/21, Alistair Francis escreveu:
> 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.
>
I see, thanks for working on 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.
>
Yes, this is what I think it will be the best approach. I believe the
code will be less complex, it's more future proof (it's ready for y2038)
and when glibc supports time64, we can make this code even simpler using
`-D__USE_TIME_BITS64` to compile it. Thanks again for working on that!
> 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:[~2021-09-26 21:33 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
2021-09-26 21:32 ` André Almeida [this message]
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=a65dfe31-a355-8cf8-99d8-70ddf23c5384@collabora.com \
--to=andrealmeid@collabora.com \
--cc=acme@kernel.org \
--cc=alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com \
--cc=alistair.francis@opensource.wdc.com \
--cc=alistair.francis@wdc.com \
--cc=alistair23@gmail.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).