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;
Date:   Wed, 27 Nov 2019 21:12:23 +0200
From:   Leon Romanovsky <leon@kernel.org>
To:     Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>
Cc:     Nicolas Saenz Julienne <nsaenzjulienne@suse.de>,
        andrew.murray@arm.com, maz@kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com>,
        Hanjun Guo <guohanjun@huawei.com>,
        Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>,
        Tariq Toukan <tariqt@mellanox.com>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
        Frank Rowand <frowand.list@gmail.com>,
        Shawn Lin <shawn.lin@rock-chips.com>,
        Heiko Stuebner <heiko@sntech.de>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>,
        Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@samsung.com>,
        james.quinlan@broadcom.com, mbrugger@suse.com,
        f.fainelli@gmail.com, phil@raspberrypi.org, wahrenst@gmx.net,
        jeremy.linton@arm.com, linux-pci@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-rpi-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
        Len Brown <lenb@kernel.org>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@google.com>,
        linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
        netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org,
        devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-rockchip@lists.infradead.org,
        iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/7] linux/log2.h: Add roundup/rounddown_pow_two64()
 family of functions
Message-ID: <20191127191223.GF10331@unreal>
References: <20191126091946.7970-1-nsaenzjulienne@suse.de>
 <20191126091946.7970-2-nsaenzjulienne@suse.de>
 <20191126125137.GA10331@unreal>
 <6e0b9079-9efd-2884-26d1-3db2d622079d@arm.com>
 <b30002d48c9d010a1ee81c16cd29beee914c3b1d.camel@suse.de>
 <c08863a7-49c6-962e-e968-92adb8ee2cc9@arm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <c08863a7-49c6-962e-e968-92adb8ee2cc9@arm.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.12.1 (2019-06-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Nov 27, 2019 at 07:06:12PM +0000, Robin Murphy wrote:
> On 27/11/2019 6:24 pm, Nicolas Saenz Julienne wrote:
> > On Wed, 2019-11-27 at 18:06 +0000, Robin Murphy wrote:
> > > On 26/11/2019 12:51 pm, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Nov 26, 2019 at 10:19:39AM +0100, Nicolas Saenz Julienne wrote:
> > > > > Some users need to make sure their rounding function accepts and returns
> > > > > 64bit long variables regardless of the architecture. Sadly
> > > > > roundup/rounddown_pow_two() takes and returns unsigned longs. Create a
> > > > > new generic 64bit variant of the function and cleanup rougue custom
> > > > > implementations.
> > > >
> > > > Is it possible to create general roundup/rounddown_pow_two() which will
> > > > work correctly for any type of variables, instead of creating special
> > > > variant for every type?
> > >
> > > In fact, that is sort of the case already - roundup_pow_of_two() itself
> > > wraps ilog2() such that the constant case *is* type-independent. And
> > > since ilog2() handles non-constant values anyway, might it be reasonable
> > > to just take the strongly-typed __roundup_pow_of_two() helper out of the
> > > loop as below?
> > >
> > > Robin
> > >
> >
> > That looks way better that's for sure. Some questions.
> >
> > > ----->8-----
> > > diff --git a/include/linux/log2.h b/include/linux/log2.h
> > > index 83a4a3ca3e8a..e825f8a6e8b5 100644
> > > --- a/include/linux/log2.h
> > > +++ b/include/linux/log2.h
> > > @@ -172,11 +172,8 @@ unsigned long __rounddown_pow_of_two(unsigned long n)
> > >     */
> > >    #define roundup_pow_of_two(n)			\
> > >    (						\
> > > -	__builtin_constant_p(n) ? (		\
> > > -		(n == 1) ? 1 :			\
> > > -		(1UL << (ilog2((n) - 1) + 1))	\
> > > -				   ) :		\
> > > -	__roundup_pow_of_two(n)			\
> > > +	(__builtin_constant_p(n) && (n == 1)) ?	\
> > > +	1 : (1UL << (ilog2((n) - 1) + 1))	\
> >
> > Then here you'd have to use ULL instead of UL, right? I want my 64bit value
> > everywhere regardless of the CPU arch. The downside is that would affect
> > performance to some extent (i.e. returning a 64bit value where you used to have
> > a 32bit one)?
>
> True, although it's possible that 1ULL might result in the same codegen if
> the compiler can see that the result is immediately truncated back to long
> anyway. Or at worst, I suppose "(typeof(n))1" could suffice, however ugly.
> Either way, this diff was only an illustration rather than a concrete
> proposal, but it might be an interesting diversion to investigate.
>
> On that note, though, you should probably be using ULL in your current patch
> too.
>
> > Also, what about callers to this function on platforms with 32bit 'unsigned
> > longs' that happen to input a 64bit value into this. IIUC we'd have a change of
> > behaviour.
>
> Indeed, although the change in such a case would be "start getting the
> expected value instead of nonsense", so it might very well be welcome ;)

Agree, if code overflowed with 32 bits before this change, the code was already
broken. At least now, it won't overflow.

>
> Robin.