On Wed, 2019-11-27 at 19:06 +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. I actually meant to, the fix got lost. Thanks for pointing it out. As I see Leon also likes this, I'll try out this implementation and come back with some results. Regards, Nicolas
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
