From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.6 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,MENTIONS_GIT_HOSTING, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D885CC433DF for ; Thu, 28 May 2020 16:28:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B1A09207D3 for ; Thu, 28 May 2020 16:28:39 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1590683319; bh=LhqhtSC62DAR0q5esK0Nn10J6iR+qryXxFBC6MdsPfA=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Reply-To:References:In-Reply-To:List-ID: From; b=SXbWdZVWQxvKQY8xh7mvop1mLaEY64u+cj5wXo8BrmV7TjCUWbnV1X4P9m3Tcv9hA y1CNrMq+kXSHdgdppFJf/jNB1b9IFaioWGWPN7nRTI9MMeXRgaIBxshQlBL43cvhum uAHjLvs13ppZeXVEOoY1WPy7CHxScxSWNqlzF3pw= Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S2405036AbgE1Q2i (ORCPT ); Thu, 28 May 2020 12:28:38 -0400 Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.99]:33484 "EHLO mail.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S2404986AbgE1Q2f (ORCPT ); Thu, 28 May 2020 12:28:35 -0400 Received: from paulmck-ThinkPad-P72.home (50-39-105-78.bvtn.or.frontiernet.net [50.39.105.78]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9FD302071A; Thu, 28 May 2020 16:28:34 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1590683314; bh=LhqhtSC62DAR0q5esK0Nn10J6iR+qryXxFBC6MdsPfA=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Reply-To:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=sQZE7iYW38p55QIfyS3Tamq+5JECSCsqlGVvUmjzTTDIzotzRb+T6AZNPpFU0W1Hk y6m7PSvb8e6WpA9iAcrpxHpZ+SgpUn2P1qypB3jqL+okFbQCMb1JjhwhyW6/GowpRO gMNlmBIgfalEPer6ZLoBSb6WeIDN5FNbTUkY6q4c= Received: by paulmck-ThinkPad-P72.home (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 8920835228F0; Thu, 28 May 2020 09:28:34 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 28 May 2020 09:28:34 -0700 From: "Paul E. McKenney" To: Geert Uytterhoeven Cc: kbuild test robot , kbuild-all@lists.01.org, Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: [rcu:dev.2020.05.26a 56/72] refperf.c:undefined reference to `__umoddi3' Message-ID: <20200528162834.GJ2869@paulmck-ThinkPad-P72> Reply-To: paulmck@kernel.org References: <202005280819.lJ4qjCcP%lkp@intel.com> <20200528135141.GE2869@paulmck-ThinkPad-P72> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 05:31:33PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > Hi Paul, > > On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 3:51 PM Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 09:04:38AM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > > > On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 5:26 AM kbuild test robot wrote: > > > > tree: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/paulmck/linux-rcu.git dev.2020.05.26a > > > > head: 63fdce1252f16032c9e1eb7244bb674ba4f84855 > > > > commit: bd5b16d6c88da451a46d068a25fafad8e83d14a6 [56/72] refperf: Allow decimal nanoseconds > > > > config: m68k-allyesconfig (attached as .config) > > > > compiler: m68k-linux-gcc (GCC) 9.3.0 > > > > reproduce (this is a W=1 build): > > > > wget https://raw.githubusercontent.com/intel/lkp-tests/master/sbin/make.cross -O ~/bin/make.cross > > > > chmod +x ~/bin/make.cross > > > > git checkout bd5b16d6c88da451a46d068a25fafad8e83d14a6 > > > > # save the attached .config to linux build tree > > > > COMPILER_INSTALL_PATH=$HOME/0day COMPILER=gcc-9.3.0 make.cross ARCH=m68k > > > > > > > > If you fix the issue, kindly add following tag as appropriate > > > > Reported-by: kbuild test robot > > > > > > > > All errors (new ones prefixed by >>, old ones prefixed by <<): > > > > > > > > m68k-linux-ld: kernel/rcu/refperf.o: in function `main_func': > > > > >> refperf.c:(.text+0x762): undefined reference to `__umoddi3' > > > > >> m68k-linux-ld: refperf.c:(.text+0x8f2): undefined reference to `__udivdi3' > > > > m68k-linux-ld: refperf.c:(.text+0x97c): undefined reference to `__udivdi3' > > > > > > | --- a/kernel/rcu/refperf.c > > > | +++ b/kernel/rcu/refperf.c > > > | @@ -375,7 +375,7 @@ static int main_func(void *arg) > > > | if (torture_must_stop()) > > > | goto end; > > > | > > > | - reader_tasks[exp].result_avg = > > > process_durations(exp) / ((exp + 1) * loops); > > > | + reader_tasks[exp].result_avg = 1000 * > > > process_durations(exp) / ((exp + 1) * loops); > > > > > > div64_ul() for 64-by-unsigned-long division > > > > Ah, thank you for the explanation! > > > > This is just a performance-test module intended for SMP systems, so > > I don't see much point in making it work on m68k, which looks to be > > UP-only. But it is clearly useful to prevent the test bots from building > > refperf on m68k. So one approach would be for me to make its Kconfig > > option depend on SMP. Another would be to make it depend on 64BIT. > > Still another would be to make it depend on !M68K. > > > > I could potentially dump out the numbers in picoseconds, then > > do the averaging and other division operations in userspace, > > but that is strange enough to cause more trouble than it is worth. > > (An rcu_read_lock()/rcu_read_unlock() pair takes -how- long???) Though if > > there was some point in running this on m68k, it might be worth it (with > > "PICOSECONDS" in all caps or some such), but in this case it is not. > > But this would probably require more data to be dumped to allow userspace > > to do the operations, increasing the probability of lost printk()s. :-/ > > > > Left to myself, I would take the easy way out and make this depend > > on 64BIT. > > > > But you must have run into this situation before. Any thoughts? > > Oh, this is not just on m68k. I expect the build bots to start complaining > about other 32-bit platforms, too, like i386 and arm32 ;-) > > While restricting this to 64BIT will fix the issue, are you sure people > on 32-bit SMP platforms don't want to run this code? In the unlikely event that they do, we can go from there. > So I'd go for div64_ul() and do_div(). OK, I will bite... Plus my feeble web search failed to satisfy my idle curiosity on this point. ;-) Why can't these 32-bit SMP platforms supply the API that the compiler expects, so that normal C-language arithmetic just works? Thanx, Paul > > > | } > > > | > > > | // Print the average of all experiments > > > | @@ -386,7 +386,7 @@ static int main_func(void *arg) > > > | strcat(buf, "Threads\tTime(ns)\n"); > > > | > > > | for (exp = 0; exp < nreaders; exp++) { > > > | - sprintf(buf1, "%d\t%llu\n", exp + 1, > > > reader_tasks[exp].result_avg); > > > | + sprintf(buf1, "%d\t%llu.%03d\n", exp + 1, > > > reader_tasks[exp].result_avg / 1000, > > > (int)(reader_tasks[exp].result_avg % 1000)); > > > > > > do_div() for 64-by-32 division/modulo > > Gr{oetje,eeting}s, > > Geert > > -- > Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org > > In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But > when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that. > -- Linus Torvalds