From: Arnd Bergmann
> Sent: 18 November 2020 15:38
>
> On Wed, Nov 18, 2020 at 4:10 PM Willem de Bruijn
> <willemdebruijn.kernel@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 18, 2020 at 10:00 AM Matthew Wilcox <willy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, Nov 18, 2020 at 09:46:15AM -0500, Willem de Bruijn wrote:
> > > > -static inline struct timespec64 ep_set_mstimeout(long ms)
> > > > +static inline struct timespec64 ep_set_nstimeout(s64 timeout)
> > > > {
> > > > - struct timespec64 now, ts = {
> > > > - .tv_sec = ms / MSEC_PER_SEC,
> > > > - .tv_nsec = NSEC_PER_MSEC * (ms % MSEC_PER_SEC),
> > > > - };
> > > > + struct timespec64 now, ts;
> > > >
> > > > + ts = ns_to_timespec64(timeout);
> > > > ktime_get_ts64(&now);
> > > > return timespec64_add_safe(now, ts);
> > > > }
> > >
> > > Why do you pass around an s64 for timeout, converting it to and from
> > > a timespec64 instead of passing around a timespec64?
> >
> > I implemented both approaches. The alternative was no simpler.
> > Conversion in existing epoll_wait, epoll_pwait and epoll_pwait
> > (compat) becomes a bit more complex and adds a stack variable there if
> > passing the timespec64 by reference. And in ep_poll the ternary
> > timeout test > 0, 0, < 0 now requires checking both tv_secs and
> > tv_nsecs. Based on that, I found this simpler. But no strong
> > preference.
>
> The 64-bit division can be fairly expensive on 32-bit architectures,
> at least when it doesn't get optimized into a multiply+shift.
I'd have thought you'd want to do everything in 64bit nanosecs.
Conversions to/from any of the 'timespec' structure are expensive.
David
-
Registered Address Lakeside, Bramley Road, Mount Farm, Milton Keynes, MK1 1PT, UK
Registration No: 1397386 (Wales)
