lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [May]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [rcu:dev.2020.05.26a 56/72] refperf.c:undefined reference to `__umoddi3'
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 <paulmck@kernel.org> 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 <lkp@intel.com> 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 <lkp@intel.com>
> > > >
> > > > 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

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-05-28 18:29    [W:0.063 / U:9.868 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site