lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2023]   [May]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] drm/drm_vblank.c: avoid unsigned int to signed int cast
Date
On Mon, 22 May 2023, Sui Jingfeng <15330273260@189.cn> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 2023/5/22 20:13, Jani Nikula wrote:
>> On Mon, 22 May 2023, Sui Jingfeng <15330273260@189.cn> wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On 2023/5/22 19:29, Jani Nikula wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 18 May 2023, Sui Jingfeng <15330273260@189.cn> wrote:
>>>>> On 2023/5/17 18:59, David Laight wrote:
>>>>>> From: 15330273260@189.cn
>>>>>>> Sent: 16 May 2023 18:30
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> From: Sui Jingfeng <suijingfeng@loongson.cn>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Both mode->crtc_htotal and mode->crtc_vtotal are u16 type,
>>>>>>> mode->crtc_htotal * mode->crtc_vtotal will results a unsigned type.
>>>>>> Nope, u16 gets promoted to 'signed int' and the result of the
>>>>>> multiply is also signed.
>>>>> I believe that signed or unsigned is dependent on the declaration.
>>>>>
>>>>> I am talk about the math, while you are talking about compiler.
>>>>>
>>>>> I admit that u16 gets promoted to 'signed int' is true, but this is
>>>>> irrelevant,
>>>>>
>>>>> the point is how to understand the returned value.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> How does the compiler generate the code is one thing, how do we
>>>>> interpret the result is another
>>>>>
>>>>> How does the compiler generate the code is NOT determined by us, while
>>>>> how do we interpret the result is determined by us.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I believe that using a u32 type to interpret the result(u16 * u16) is
>>>>> always true, it is true in the perspective of *math*.
>>>>>
>>>>> Integer promotions is the details of C program language. If the result
>>>>> of the multiply is signed, then there are risks that
>>>>>
>>>>> the result is negative, what's the benefit to present this risk to the
>>>>> programmer?
>>>>>
>>>>> What's the benefit to tell me(and others) that u16 * u16 yield a signed
>>>>> value? and can be negative?
>>>>>
>>>>> Using int type as the return type bring concerns to the programmer and
>>>>> the user of the function,
>>>>>
>>>>> even though this is not impossible in practice.
>>>> In general, do not use unsigned types in arithmethic to avoid negative
>>>> values, because most people will be tripped over by integer promotion
>>>> rules, and you'll get negative values anyway.
>>>>
>>>> I'll bet most people will be surprised to see what this prints:
>>>>
>>>> #include <stdio.h>
>>>> #include <stdint.h>
>>>>
>>>> int main(void)
>>>> {
>>>> uint16_t x = 0xffff;
>>>> uint16_t y = 0xffff;
>>>> uint64_t z = x * y;
>>>>
>>>> printf("0x%016lx\n", z);
>>>> printf("%ld\n", z);
>>> Here, please replace the "%ld\n" with the "%lu\n", then you will see the
>>> difference.
>>>
>>> you are casting the variable 'z' to signed value,  "%d" is for printing
>>> signed value, and "%u" is for printing unsigned value.
>>>
>>>
>>> Your simple code explained exactly why you are still in confusion,
>> Am I?
>>
>> Take a look at the values, and explain the math.
>
> I meant the value itself is represent with 2's compliment,
>
> when you print a value with '%ld', then you will get the signed version,
>
> when you print a value with '%lu', then you will get the unsigned version.
>
> The result of a u16*u16 couldn't be negative in math.
>
>
> But when you using a '%ld' or '%d' to print a unsigned value, then is wrong.
>
> This is also the case which you shouldn't using a int type to store the result of u16*u16.
>
> because when I seen a int type, I will choose '%d' to print it,
>
> when I seen a unsigned int type, I will choose '%u' to print it.
>
> when using a int type as the return type, this could lead people to using '%d' to print
>
> such a value. Then, it generate the confusion as this little test program shows.

Using 0x%016lx and %lu results in 0xfffffffffffe0001 and
18446744073709420545, respectively. They are equal. They are indeed not
negative.

However 0xffff * 0xffff = 0xfffe0001. Or 4294836225 in decimal.

No matter what the math says, this is what actually happens in C.

I don't know what more I could possibly tell you.


BR,
Jani.


>
>>
>> BR,
>> Jani.
>>
>>> that is u16 * u16  can yield a negative value if you use the int as the
>>> return type. Because it overflowed.
>>>
>>>> printf("%d\n", x * y);
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> And it's not that different from what you have below. Your patch doesn't
>>>> change anything, and doesn't make it any less confusing.
>>>>
>>>> BR,
>>>> Jani.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>> Using a u32 is enough to store the result, but considering that the
>>>>>>> result will be casted to u64 soon after. We use a u64 type directly.
>>>>>>> So there no need to cast it to signed type and cast back then.
>>>>>> ....
>>>>>>> - int frame_size = mode->crtc_htotal * mode->crtc_vtotal;
>>>>>>> + u64 frame_size = mode->crtc_htotal * mode->crtc_vtotal;
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>> - framedur_ns = div_u64((u64) frame_size * 1000000, dotclock);
>>>>>>> + framedur_ns = div_u64(frame_size * 1000000, dotclock);
>>>>>> The (u64) cast is there to extend the value to 64bits, not
>>>>>> because the original type is signed.
>>>>> Sorry about my expression, I think my sentence did not mention anything
>>>>> about 'because the original type is signed'.
>>>>>
>>>>> In the contrary, my patch eliminated the concerns to the reviewer. It
>>>>> say that the results of the multiply can't be negative.
>>>>>
>>>>> My intent is to tell the compiler we want a unsigned return type, but
>>>>> GCC emit 'imul' instruction for the multiply......
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm using u64 as the return type, because div_u64() function accept a
>>>>> u64 type value as its first argument.
>>>>>
>>>>>> The compiler will detect that the old code is a 32x32 multiply
>>>>>> where a 64bit result is needed, that may not be true for the
>>>>>> changed code (it would need to track back as far as the u16s).
>>>>> I don't believe my code could be wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>> when you use the word 'may', you are saying that it could be wrong after
>>>>> apply my patch.
>>>>>
>>>>> Then you have to find at least one test example to prove you point, in
>>>>> which case my codes generate wrong results.
>>>>>
>>>>> Again I don't believe you could find one.
>>>>>
>>>>>> It is not uncommon to force a 64bit result from a multiply
>>>>>> by making the constant 64bit. As in:
>>>>>> div_u64(frame_size * 1000000ULL, dotclock);
>>>>> In fact, After apply this patch, the ASM code generated is same with before.
>>>>>
>>>>> This may because the GCC is smart enough to generate optimized code in
>>>>> either case,
>>>>>
>>>>> I think It could be different with a different optimization-level.
>>>>>
>>>>> I have tested this patch on three different architecture,  I can not
>>>>> find error still.
>>>>>
>>>>> Below is the assembly extract on x86-64: because GCC generate the same
>>>>> code in either case,
>>>>>
>>>>> so I pasted only one copy here.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 0000000000000530 <drm_calc_timestamping_constants>:
>>>>>      530:    f3 0f 1e fa              endbr64
>>>>>      534:    e8 00 00 00 00           callq  539
>>>>> <drm_calc_timestamping_constants+0x9>
>>>>>      539:    55                       push   %rbp
>>>>>      53a:    48 89 e5                 mov    %rsp,%rbp
>>>>>      53d:    41 57                    push   %r15
>>>>>      53f:    41 56                    push   %r14
>>>>>      541:    41 55                    push   %r13
>>>>>      543:    41 54                    push   %r12
>>>>>      545:    53                       push   %rbx
>>>>>      546:    48 83 ec 18              sub    $0x18,%rsp
>>>>>      54a:    4c 8b 3f                 mov    (%rdi),%r15
>>>>>      54d:    41 8b 87 6c 01 00 00     mov    0x16c(%r15),%eax
>>>>>      554:    85 c0                    test   %eax,%eax
>>>>>      556:    0f 84 ec 00 00 00        je     648
>>>>> <drm_calc_timestamping_constants+0x118>
>>>>>      55c:    44 8b 87 90 00 00 00     mov    0x90(%rdi),%r8d
>>>>>      563:    49 89 fc                 mov    %rdi,%r12
>>>>>      566:    44 39 c0                 cmp    %r8d,%eax
>>>>>      569:    0f 86 40 01 00 00        jbe    6af
>>>>> <drm_calc_timestamping_constants+0x17f>
>>>>>      56f:    44 8b 76 1c              mov    0x1c(%rsi),%r14d
>>>>>      573:    49 8b 8f 40 01 00 00     mov    0x140(%r15),%rcx
>>>>>      57a:    48 89 f3                 mov    %rsi,%rbx
>>>>>      57d:    45 85 f6                 test   %r14d,%r14d
>>>>>      580:    0f 8e d5 00 00 00        jle    65b
>>>>> <drm_calc_timestamping_constants+0x12b>
>>>>>      586:    0f b7 43 2a              movzwl 0x2a(%rbx),%eax
>>>>>      58a:    49 63 f6                 movslq %r14d,%rsi
>>>>>      58d:    31 d2                    xor    %edx,%edx
>>>>>      58f:    48 89 c7                 mov    %rax,%rdi
>>>>>      592:    48 69 c0 40 42 0f 00     imul   $0xf4240,%rax,%rax
>>>>>      599:    48 f7 f6                 div    %rsi
>>>>>      59c:    31 d2                    xor    %edx,%edx
>>>>>      59e:    48 89 45 d0              mov    %rax,-0x30(%rbp)
>>>>>      5a2:    0f b7 43 38              movzwl 0x38(%rbx),%eax
>>>>>      5a6:    0f af c7                 imul   %edi,%eax
>>>>>      5a9:    48 98                    cltq
>>>>>      5ab:    48 69 c0 40 42 0f 00     imul   $0xf4240,%rax,%rax
>>>>>      5b2:    48 f7 f6                 div    %rsi
>>>>>      5b5:    41 89 c5                 mov    %eax,%r13d
>>>>>      5b8:    f6 43 18 10              testb  $0x10,0x18(%rbx)
>>>>>      5bc:    74 0a                    je     5c8
>>>>> <drm_calc_timestamping_constants+0x98>
>>>>>      5be:    41 c1 ed 1f              shr    $0x1f,%r13d
>>>>>      5c2:    41 01 c5                 add    %eax,%r13d
>>>>>      5c5:    41 d1 fd                 sar    %r13d
>>>>>      5c8:    4b 8d 04 c0              lea    (%r8,%r8,8),%rax
>>>>>      5cc:    48 89 de                 mov    %rbx,%rsi
>>>>>      5cf:    49 8d 3c 40              lea    (%r8,%rax,2),%rdi
>>>>>      5d3:    8b 45 d0                 mov    -0x30(%rbp),%eax
>>>>>      5d6:    48 c1 e7 04              shl    $0x4,%rdi
>>>>>      5da:    48 01 cf                 add    %rcx,%rdi
>>>>>      5dd:    89 47 78                 mov    %eax,0x78(%rdi)
>>>>>      5e0:    48 83 ef 80              sub $0xffffffffffffff80,%rdi
>>>>>      5e4:    44 89 6f f4              mov    %r13d,-0xc(%rdi)
>>>>>      5e8:    e8 00 00 00 00           callq  5ed
>>>>> <drm_calc_timestamping_constants+0xbd>
>>>>>      5ed:    0f b7 53 2e              movzwl 0x2e(%rbx),%edx
>>>>>      5f1:    0f b7 43 38              movzwl 0x38(%rbx),%eax
>>>>>      5f5:    44 0f b7 4b 2a           movzwl 0x2a(%rbx),%r9d
>>>>>      5fa:    45 8b 44 24 60           mov    0x60(%r12),%r8d
>>>>>      5ff:    4d 85 ff                 test   %r15,%r15
>>>>>      602:    0f 84 87 00 00 00        je     68f
>>>>> <drm_calc_timestamping_constants+0x15f>
>>>>>      608:    49 8b 77 08              mov    0x8(%r15),%rsi
>>>>>      60c:    52                       push   %rdx
>>>>>      60d:    31 ff                    xor    %edi,%edi
>>>>>      60f:    48 c7 c1 00 00 00 00     mov    $0x0,%rcx
>>>>>      616:    50                       push   %rax
>>>>>      617:    31 d2                    xor    %edx,%edx
>>>>>      619:    e8 00 00 00 00           callq  61e
>>>>> <drm_calc_timestamping_constants+0xee>
>>>>>      61e:    45 8b 44 24 60           mov    0x60(%r12),%r8d
>>>>>      623:    4d 8b 7f 08              mov    0x8(%r15),%r15
>>>>>      627:    5f                       pop    %rdi
>>>>>      628:    41 59                    pop    %r9
>>>>>      62a:    8b 45 d0                 mov    -0x30(%rbp),%eax
>>>>>      62d:    48 c7 c1 00 00 00 00     mov    $0x0,%rcx
>>>>>      634:    4c 89 fe                 mov    %r15,%rsi
>>>>>      637:    45 89 f1                 mov    %r14d,%r9d
>>>>>      63a:    31 d2                    xor    %edx,%edx
>>>>>      63c:    31 ff                    xor    %edi,%edi
>>>>>      63e:    50                       push   %rax
>>>>>      63f:    41 55                    push   %r13
>>>>>      641:    e8 00 00 00 00           callq  646
>>>>> <drm_calc_timestamping_constants+0x116>
>>>>>      646:    59                       pop    %rcx
>>>>>      647:    5e                       pop    %rsi
>>>>>      648:    48 8d 65 d8              lea    -0x28(%rbp),%rsp
>>>>>      64c:    5b                       pop    %rbx
>>>>>      64d:    41 5c                    pop    %r12
>>>>>      64f:    41 5d                    pop    %r13
>>>>>      651:    41 5e                    pop    %r14
>>>>>      653:    41 5f                    pop    %r15
>>>>>      655:    5d                       pop    %rbp
>>>>>      656:    e9 00 00 00 00           jmpq   65b
>>>>> <drm_calc_timestamping_constants+0x12b>
>>>>>      65b:    41 8b 54 24 60           mov    0x60(%r12),%edx
>>>>>      660:    49 8b 7f 08              mov    0x8(%r15),%rdi
>>>>>      664:    44 89 45 c4              mov    %r8d,-0x3c(%rbp)
>>>>>      668:    45 31 ed                 xor    %r13d,%r13d
>>>>>      66b:    48 c7 c6 00 00 00 00     mov    $0x0,%rsi
>>>>>      672:    48 89 4d c8              mov    %rcx,-0x38(%rbp)
>>>>>      676:    e8 00 00 00 00           callq  67b
>>>>> <drm_calc_timestamping_constants+0x14b>
>>>>>      67b:    c7 45 d0 00 00 00 00     movl   $0x0,-0x30(%rbp)
>>>>>      682:    44 8b 45 c4              mov    -0x3c(%rbp),%r8d
>>>>>      686:    48 8b 4d c8              mov    -0x38(%rbp),%rcx
>>>>>      68a:    e9 39 ff ff ff           jmpq   5c8
>>>>> <drm_calc_timestamping_constants+0x98>
>>>>>      68f:    52                       push   %rdx
>>>>>      690:    48 c7 c1 00 00 00 00     mov    $0x0,%rcx
>>>>>      697:    31 d2                    xor    %edx,%edx
>>>>>      699:    31 f6                    xor    %esi,%esi
>>>>>      69b:    50                       push   %rax
>>>>>      69c:    31 ff                    xor    %edi,%edi
>>>>>      69e:    e8 00 00 00 00           callq  6a3
>>>>> <drm_calc_timestamping_constants+0x173>
>>>>>      6a3:    45 8b 44 24 60           mov    0x60(%r12),%r8d
>>>>>      6a8:    58                       pop    %rax
>>>>>      6a9:    5a                       pop    %rdx
>>>>>      6aa:    e9 7b ff ff ff           jmpq   62a
>>>>> <drm_calc_timestamping_constants+0xfa>
>>>>>      6af:    49 8b 7f 08              mov    0x8(%r15),%rdi
>>>>>      6b3:    4c 8b 67 50              mov    0x50(%rdi),%r12
>>>>>      6b7:    4d 85 e4                 test   %r12,%r12
>>>>>      6ba:    74 25                    je     6e1
>>>>> <drm_calc_timestamping_constants+0x1b1>
>>>>>      6bc:    e8 00 00 00 00           callq  6c1
>>>>> <drm_calc_timestamping_constants+0x191>
>>>>>      6c1:    48 c7 c1 00 00 00 00     mov    $0x0,%rcx
>>>>>      6c8:    4c 89 e2                 mov    %r12,%rdx
>>>>>      6cb:    48 c7 c7 00 00 00 00     mov    $0x0,%rdi
>>>>>      6d2:    48 89 c6                 mov    %rax,%rsi
>>>>>      6d5:    e8 00 00 00 00           callq  6da
>>>>> <drm_calc_timestamping_constants+0x1aa>
>>>>>      6da:    0f 0b                    ud2
>>>>>      6dc:    e9 67 ff ff ff           jmpq   648
>>>>> <drm_calc_timestamping_constants+0x118>
>>>>>      6e1:    4c 8b 27                 mov    (%rdi),%r12
>>>>>      6e4:    eb d6                    jmp    6bc
>>>>> <drm_calc_timestamping_constants+0x18c>
>>>>>      6e6:    66 2e 0f 1f 84 00 00     nopw   %cs:0x0(%rax,%rax,1)
>>>>>      6ed:    00 00 00
>>>>>      6f0:    90                       nop
>>>>>      6f1:    90                       nop
>>>>>      6f2:    90                       nop
>>>>>      6f3:    90                       nop
>>>>>      6f4:    90                       nop
>>>>>      6f5:    90                       nop
>>>>>      6f6:    90                       nop
>>>>>      6f7:    90                       nop
>>>>>      6f8:    90                       nop
>>>>>      6f9:    90                       nop
>>>>>      6fa:    90                       nop
>>>>>      6fb:    90                       nop
>>>>>      6fc:    90                       nop
>>>>>      6fd:    90                       nop
>>>>>      6fe:    90                       nop
>>>>>      6ff:    90                       nop
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> David
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -
>>>>>> Registered Address Lakeside, Bramley Road, Mount Farm, Milton Keynes, MK1 1PT, UK
>>>>>> Registration No: 1397386 (Wales)
>>>>>>

--
Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Graphics Center

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2023-05-22 18:48    [W:0.287 / U:0.428 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site