On 9 January 2018 at 20:23, Joe Perches <joe@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, 2018-01-09 at 16:18 +0100, Crt Mori wrote:
>> There is no option to perform 64bit integer sqrt on 32bit platform.
>> Added stronger typed int_sqrt64 enables the 64bit calculations to
>> be performed on 32bit platforms. Using same algorithm as int_sqrt()
>> with strong typing provides enough precision also on 32bit platforms,
>> but it sacrifices some performance.
> []
>> diff --git a/lib/int_sqrt.c b/lib/int_sqrt.c
> []
>> @@ -36,3 +37,34 @@ unsigned long int_sqrt(unsigned long x)
>> return y;
>> }
>> EXPORT_SYMBOL(int_sqrt);
>> +
>> +#if BITS_PER_LONG < 64
>> +/**
>> + * int_sqrt64 - strongly typed int_sqrt function when minimum 64 bit input
>> + * is expected.
>> + * @x: 64bit integer of which to calculate the sqrt
>> + */
>> +u32 int_sqrt64(u64 x)
>> +{
>> + u64 b, m;
>> + u32 y = 0;
>> +
>> + if (x <= 1)
>> + return x;
>
> I think this should instead be:
>
> if (x <= INT_MAX)
> return int_sqrt((int)x);
>
> to reduce the loop cost below when the
> value is small enough.
>
In existing int_sqrt its only 1 and I assume that is more to protect
from loop execution with 0 or 1. Since there is no difference (except
fls64) with int_sqrt I assume there is no need to call it to avoid
loop?
>> +
>> + m = 1ULL << (fls64(x) & ~1ULL);
>> + while (m != 0) {
>> + b = y + m;
>> + y >>= 1;
>> +
>> + if (x >= b) {
>> + x -= b;
>> + y += m;
>> + }
>> + m >>= 2;
>> + }
>> +
>> + return y;
>> +}
>> +EXPORT_SYMBOL(int_sqrt64);
>> +#endif
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-iio" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
