Re: Linux 3.1-rc9

From: Ingo Molnar
Date: Mon Oct 17 2011 - 18:04:55 EST



* Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxx> wrote:

> > > In particular we could try something like:
> > >
> > > (high*2^32 + low)/1e9 ~== ( high * (2^64/1e9) ) / 2^32
> > >
> > > ... which reduces it all to a 64-bit multiplication (or two
> > > 32-bit multiplications) with a known constant, at the cost of 1
> > > nsec imprecision of the result - but that's an OK approximation
> > > in my opinion.
> > >
> >
> > We can do much better than that with reciprocal multiplication.
>
> Yes, 2^64/1e9 is the reciprocal.

So basically, to extend on the pseudocode above, we could do the
equivalent of:

/* 2^64/1e9: */
#define MAGIC 18446744073ULL

secs_fast = ((nsecs >> 32) * MAGIC) >> 32;
secs_fast += (nsecs & 0xFFFFFFFF)/1000000000;

to get to the precise 'timeval.secs' field - these are all 32-bit
operations: a 32-bit multiplication and a 32-bit division if i
counted it right.

(Likewise we can get the remainder as well, for timeval.nsecs.)

So I think if we add 32-bit optimized reciprocal multiplication based
timeval and timespec routines, we can change ktime_t to a simple
scalar type on 64-bit and 32-bit architectures alike.

It would likely be faster as well: the 32-bit ktime operations are
more complex than straightforward u64 operations.

Thomas, what do you think?

Thanks,

Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/