Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-37404-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1;
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2024 09:12:11 -0800
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>
To: Jiri Wiesner <jwiesner@suse.de>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, John Stultz <jstultz@google.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	Stephen Boyd <sboyd@kernel.org>, Feng Tang <feng.tang@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] clocksource: Skip watchdog check for large watchdog
 intervals
Message-ID: <b437c9c7-b2e6-432d-89c1-eb2497bc742a@paulmck-laptop>
Reply-To: paulmck@kernel.org
References: <20240122172350.GA740@incl>
 <616658ba-0e69-447b-8b52-5051a5aa9bc0@paulmck-laptop>
 <20240124164803.GN3303@incl>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20240124164803.GN3303@incl>

On Wed, Jan 24, 2024 at 05:48:03PM +0100, Jiri Wiesner wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 24, 2024 at 08:03:42AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 22, 2024 at 06:23:50PM +0100, Jiri Wiesner wrote:
> > > diff --git a/kernel/time/clocksource.c b/kernel/time/clocksource.c
> > > index c108ed8a9804..3052b1f1168e 100644
> > > --- a/kernel/time/clocksource.c
> > > +++ b/kernel/time/clocksource.c
> > > @@ -99,6 +99,7 @@ static u64 suspend_start;
> > >   * Interval: 0.5sec.
> > >   */
> > >  #define WATCHDOG_INTERVAL (HZ >> 1)
> > > +#define WATCHDOG_INTERVAL_MAX_NS ((2 * WATCHDOG_INTERVAL) * (NSEC_PER_SEC / HZ))
> > 
> > We need something here to force 64-bit arithmetic on 32-bit systems
> > correct?
> 
> I think it is not strictly necessary because
> (2 * HZ / 2) * (NSEC_PER_SEC / HZ) = HZ * (NSEC_PER_SEC / HZ)
> so even a 32-bit integer would not overflow when NSEC_PER_SEC / HZ is 
> bracketed. But I could make a change to:
> +#define WATCHDOG_INTERVAL_MAX_NS ((int64_t)(2ULL * WATCHDOG_INTERVAL * NSEC_PER_SEC / HZ))
> to make it explicit and remove the risk of overflow if the constant was 
> increased (for testing purposes for instance).

Good point, and this is just a timeout, so roundoff error from doing the
division first is not a problem.  This should be good as it is, thank you!

I will pull in your v3 for testing and further review, and if it passes
testing, send it along to -next.

							Thanx, Paul