From nobody Sat Jan 11 16:34:06 2025 X-Original-To: freebsd-hackers@mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4YVkch0TGfz5kYtK for ; Sat, 11 Jan 2025 16:34:12 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from markjdb@gmail.com) Received: from mail-qk1-x733.google.com (mail-qk1-x733.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::733]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256 client-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "WR4" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4YVkcg3KP4z4n7L for ; Sat, 11 Jan 2025 16:34:11 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from markjdb@gmail.com) Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; none Received: by mail-qk1-x733.google.com with SMTP id af79cd13be357-7b6e9db19c8so250737685a.3 for ; Sat, 11 Jan 2025 08:34:11 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1736613250; x=1737218050; darn=freebsd.org; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id :subject:cc:to:from:date:sender:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=xgsBGy2hT+MhlSwkusN4HAkDmMzVEX+YUiRisETZSHc=; b=FHrUMPf6sdVft5Fosy3lPm+Fvsow2TRvv9JW13+5ZIPa+gUN4gdbPxKo65LNks5WuT TzuMUud81YmNtmsVTQ/jIfADiyUbv6twcHHk7D42XP8phwz2MM8bMmSmqgrmwboQffK6 KPQLrLa2vnFcqPaeXdmGTAiqVAaBoTFhAEzch5IjgKCEABdnbFWr5ggPOBZlR2W5+Cz0 NYjsH3bYsFMGvUEYSLydi/IL58+xCNK0EDiuqrZy3DEh+2Ulttzvi5ManEmbYpzP8eFr LtHlKMqixXAJ+CYhYwoM88/pVAlh05b+24DZBIhXiyDSaYfWm14nF7KZzJygivGyzYLI Sehg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1736613250; x=1737218050; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id :subject:cc:to:from:date:sender:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=xgsBGy2hT+MhlSwkusN4HAkDmMzVEX+YUiRisETZSHc=; b=HeueSxNYZIs5QMl8ItQQw1vJgszMmfpsfn6tVFx4saakzrUzYVyoWAThDD1gOU9dlK HyiQXAPF/FN957x0TRtnkNcospRxRExlDbDZ4eD2QptGs1zWPU83ea8YSKGrT1Fs+Wjp hR3MPX933DNDxG0YuHXhhntNHqFrb8fkOc6sFyVFAb66p+sQF3mi3TZCrJ8BY4lzcY+u x4TE7PaakswhMM+hjFF7qHmxa3OBM7uVaMMu/3+3M/qxPpxT4fygQ+av69iQGRC0NNL4 5Q73EsfL3c8GjIjPLYFvKYXc1nPHjSMvF+4qk+IsALuSemI4+UC/GX2MNCA6cfldkDiK qGqQ== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCVjgapKx0QSC7ctv4fYqNeRG7L4qJxl7nrbVRyc5zvk6K6nPYaJpyp75ZPP2c3LMze8lXD5EICv6KZ/yGv4Ul8=@freebsd.org X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YyTxhy8yFQm1fudUZJqq8XEWyQ/ZSToQqZPYmxlGVfI2Mfxo4PS cO23SwQ/f7Nd3g/TaqsCQqNKzORvZe3dGE0dqqGlapvXdyvzxPswPDIDyw== X-Gm-Gg: ASbGnctjyqNs0am5RSF5ErhBWVZp1ZSXQB5kTu4pvLSKiX3Y2jBehNWOk4EXUrQrVeZ fe6uhoRYyLDC08o4sbv9KrJLeU7v0no4RzmQWd3vhBy+zg5/p6ziZeEAR+/QDnTL2O7zlSXcMko nIQUQnwENkxWFgYPuYCzZI8EHj/GQcLGbKIRM3JjCTn4rtbTHlDfRY8szUhkFB3WcKZpAI2LsP5 oSnxzVcX8zRMt2MqecUCVS0PLsgOkvFI9yv/inSm+voKHw48zwf7V/kRi6xlvlOodg2w+8= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IEekI59MK19PbdMy2hEfVarjE80j1HdIHLoOCNQqFE+YJOBK+BfRZInIkg5MA9f0toenAGfVg== X-Received: by 2002:a05:620a:2947:b0:7b6:e888:6b0e with SMTP id af79cd13be357-7bcd96fa294mr2050606585a.2.1736613250150; Sat, 11 Jan 2025 08:34:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from nuc (192-0-220-237.cpe.teksavvy.com. [192.0.220.237]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 6a1803df08f44-6dfade73235sm21115436d6.90.2025.01.11.08.34.08 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Sat, 11 Jan 2025 08:34:09 -0800 (PST) Date: Sat, 11 Jan 2025 11:34:06 -0500 From: Mark Johnston To: Tomoaki AOKI Cc: Konstantin Belousov , freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: widening ticks Message-ID: References: <20250111131106.4d2657de20eeed7eef5c0b15@dec.sakura.ne.jp> List-Id: Technical discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Archive: https://lists.freebsd.org/archives/freebsd-hackers List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20250111131106.4d2657de20eeed7eef5c0b15@dec.sakura.ne.jp> X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 4YVkcg3KP4z4n7L X-Spamd-Bar: ---- X-Rspamd-Pre-Result: action=no action; module=replies; Message is reply to one we originated X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-4.00 / 15.00]; REPLY(-4.00)[]; ASN(0.00)[asn:15169, ipnet:2607:f8b0::/32, country:US] On Sat, Jan 11, 2025 at 01:11:06PM +0900, Tomoaki AOKI wrote: > On Wed, 8 Jan 2025 18:07:47 -0500 > Mark Johnston wrote: > > > On Thu, Jan 09, 2025 at 12:18:48AM +0200, Konstantin Belousov wrote: > > > On Wed, Jan 08, 2025 at 04:31:16PM -0500, Mark Johnston wrote: > > > > The global "ticks" variable counts hardclock ticks, it's widely used in > > > > the kernel for low-precision timekeeping. The linuxkpi provides a very > > > > similar variable, "jiffies", but there's an incompatibility: the former > > > > is a signed int and the latter is an unsigned long. It's not > > > > particularly easy to paper over this difference, which has been > > > > responsible for some nasty bugs, and modifying drivers to store the > > > > jiffies value in a signed int is error-prone and a maintenance burden > > > > that the linuxkpi is supposed to avoid. > > > > > > > > It would be nice to provide a compatible implementation of jiffies. I > > > > can see a few approaches: > > > > - Define a 64-bit ticks variable, say ticks64, and make hardclock() > > > > update both ticks and ticks64. Then #define jiffies ticks64 on 64-bit > > > > platforms. This is the simplest to implement, but it adds extra work > > > > to hardclock() and is somewhat ugly. > > > > - Make ticks an int64_t or a long and convert our native code > > > > accordingly. This is cleaner but requires a lot of auditing to avoid > > > > introducing bugs, though perhaps some code could be left unmodified, > > > > implicitly truncating the value to an int. For example I think > > > > sched_pctcpu_update() is fine. I've gotten an amd64 kernel to compile > > > > and boot with this change, but it's hard to be confident in it. This > > > > approach also has the potential downside of bloating structures that > > > > store a ticks value, and it can't be MFCed. > > > > - Introduce a 64-bit ticks variable, ticks64, and > > > > #define ticks ((int)ticks64). This requires renaming any struct > > > > fields and local vars named "ticks", of which there's a decent number, > > > > but that can be done fairly mechanically. > > > > > > > > Is there another solution which avoids these pitfalls? If not, should > > > > we go ahead with one of these approaches? If so, which one? > > > > > > You cannot do this in C, but can in asm: > > > .data > > > .globl ticksl, ticks > > > .type ticksl, @object > > > .type ticks, @object > > > ticksl: .quad > > > .size ticksl, 8 > > > ticks =ticksl /* for little-endian */ > > > /* ticks =ticksl + 4 for big-endian */ > > > .size ticks, 4 > > > > > > > > > Then update only ticksl in the hardclock(). > > > > I implemented your suggestion here: https://reviews.freebsd.org/D48383 > > As this is already committed to main, commenting here instead of review > D48383. > > Maybe I'm too paranoid and overlooking something, but... > > *If "jiffies" in LinuxKPI is really unsigned, isn't there any > possibilities that relies on its value to be larger than > 0x7fffffffffffffff as a threshold? > (Yes, it should be silly and non-realistic, but theoretically > possible.) Ideally we would have #define jiffies ((unsigned long)ticksl) in the linuxkpi, but some Linux code uses "jiffies" as a struct field or local variable name, so this doesn't quite work. In practice, the value is usually assigned to an unsigned long or used as an operand where it would be implicitly promoted to an unsigned type, so we don't see any incompatibilities. When jiffies is an int, code like the following can misbehave: unsigned long remain, timeout = jiffies + const; ... remain = timeout - jiffies; if ((long)remain < 0) /* timed out */ If (int)timeout and jiffies have different signs, as might happen close to a rollover, the comparison won't work as expected. Linux has some macros (time_after() etc.) which are supposed to be used instead of direct comparisons, but they're not always used. > *Is anywhere checking carry (sign) bit for int on LP32? > Maybe it would be the reason if "jiffies" in LinuxKPI is really > unsigned. Could you provide an example of what you mean?