Hi Geert,
Thanks for bringing this to my attention.
>> + u32 nbytes = 0; /* the number of bytes written by this function */
>> +
>> + u64 nbytes_expected; /* the number of bytes we should have written */
>> + u64 nbytes_streamed; /* the number of bytes we actually wrote */
>> + u32 num_null_pkts; /* number of null packets to bridge the gap */
>> +
>> + u64 elapsed_time_msecs = jiffies_to_usecs(m->timing.current_jiffies -
>> + m->timing.past_jiffies);
>> +
>> + elapsed_time_msecs = min(elapsed_time_msecs,
>> (u64)VIDTV_MAX_SLEEP_USECS / 1000);
>> + nbytes_expected = div64_u64(m->mux_rate_kbytes_sec * 1000, MSEC_PER_SEC);
>
> Seriously?!?
>
> You multiply by 1000 first, followed by a division by 1000 using an
> expensive 64-by-64 division?
This entire function is broken and needs a do-over :)
> using an expensive 64-by-64 division?
I am new to kernel development. I wasn't even aware that this was
expensive, to be honest.
>> + if (nbytes_streamed < nbytes_expected) {
>> + /* can't write half a packet: roundup to a 188 multiple */
>> + nbytes_expected = roundup(nbytes_expected - nbytes_streamed, TS_PACKET_LEN);
>
> drivers/media/test-drivers/vidtv/vidtv_mux.o: In function `vidtv_mux_tick':
> vidtv_mux.c:(.text+0x788): undefined reference to `__udivdi3'
>
> This is a 64-by-32 division, hence it should use a helper from
> <linux/math64.h>.
>
> However, I'm wondering if "nbytes_expected - nbytes_streamed" is
> guaranteed to be a "small" number, hence a 32-by-32 division would be
> sufficient?
I think so.
I will send a patch to address the things you pointed out in this email.
-- thanks
-- Daniel
