Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 04/10] sched/fair: rework load_balance
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc:     Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Phil Auld <pauld@redhat.com>,
        Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Quentin Perret <quentin.perret@arm.com>,
        Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
        Morten Rasmussen <Morten.Rasmussen@arm.com>,
        Hillf Danton <hdanton@sina.com>
References: <1568878421-12301-1-git-send-email-vincent.guittot@linaro.org>
 <1568878421-12301-5-git-send-email-vincent.guittot@linaro.org>
 <c752dd1a-731e-aae3-6a2c-aecf88901ac0@arm.com>
 <CAKfTPtBQNJfNmBqpuaefsLzsTrGxJ=2bTs+tRdbOAa9J3eKuVw@mail.gmail.com>
 <31cac0c1-98e4-c70e-e156-51a70813beff@arm.com>
 <20191008141642.GQ2294@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <b4e29e48-a97c-67e5-a284-6ddc13222c5b@arm.com>
 <20191008163357.GF2328@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
From:   Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@arm.com>
Message-ID: <5de71c9f-cd6b-0284-f4a0-0d1fe4059099@arm.com>
Date:   Tue, 8 Oct 2019 17:39:28 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/60.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20191008163357.GF2328@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 08/10/2019 17:33, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 08, 2019 at 03:34:04PM +0100, Valentin Schneider wrote:
>> On 08/10/2019 15:16, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>> On Wed, Oct 02, 2019 at 11:47:59AM +0100, Valentin Schneider wrote:
>>>
>>>> Yeah, right shift on signed negative values are implementation defined.
>>>
>>> Seriously? Even under -fno-strict-overflow? There is a perfectly
>>> sensible operation for signed shift right, this stuff should not be
>>> undefined.
>>>
>>
>> Mmm good point. I didn't see anything relevant in the description of that
>> flag. All my copy of the C99 standard (draft) says at 6.5.7.5 is:
>>
>> """
>> The result of E1 >> E2 [...] If E1 has a signed type and a negative value,
>> the resulting value is implementation-defined.
>> """
>>
>> Arithmetic shift would make sense, but I think this stems from twos'
>> complement not being imposed: 6.2.6.2.2 says sign can be done with
>> sign + magnitude, twos complement or ones' complement...
> 
> But -fno-strict-overflow mandates 2s complement for all such signed
> issues.
> 

So then there really shouldn't be any ambiguity. I have no idea if
-fno-strict-overflow then also lifts the undefinedness of the right shifts,
gotta get my spade and dig some more.