On Wed, 8 Feb 2017, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_HYPERV_CLOCK
> > +/* (a * b) >> 64 implementation */
> > +static inline u64 mul64x64_hi(u64 a, u64 b)
> > +{
> > + u64 a_lo, a_hi, b_lo, b_hi, p1, p2;
> > +
> > + a_lo = (u32)a;
> > + a_hi = a >> 32;
> > + b_lo = (u32)b;
> > + b_hi = b >> 32;
> > + p1 = a_lo * b_hi;
> > + p2 = a_hi * b_lo;
> > +
> > + return a_hi * b_hi + (p1 >> 32) + (p2 >> 32) +
> > + ((((a_lo * b_lo) >> 32) + (u32)p1 + (u32)p2) >> 32);
> > +
> > +}
>
> Unless GCC is waaay more clever than I think, this is hugely
> suboptimal on 64-bit. x86 can do this in a single instruction, and
> gcc can express it cleanly using __uint128_t. I wouldn't be terribly
> surprised if the 32-bit generated code was fine, too.
We already have that: mul_u64_u64_shr() which can be replaced by an arch
specific implementation. Nobody bothered to do that for x86 yet, but we
definitely don't want to open code it another time
Thanks,
tglx
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
