Re: enabling libgcc for 64-bit divisions, was Re: PROBLEM: XFS on ARM corruption 'Structure needs cleaning'

[Andrew Morton]

On Wed, 12 Aug 2015 15:20:54 -0700 Andy Lutomirski <luto@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On 08/12/2015 08:49 AM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 11:24 PM, Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>
> >> Maybe it's time to rely on gcc to handle 64 bit divisions now?
> >
> > Ugh. gcc still does a pretty horrible job at it. While gcc knows that
> > a widening 32x32->64 multiplication can be simplified, it doesn't do
> > the same thing for a 64/32->64 division, and always calls __udivdi3
> > for it.
> >
> > Now, __udivdi3 does avoid the general nasty case by then testing the
> > upper 32 bits of the divisor against zero, so it's not entirely
> > disastrous. It's just ugly.
> >
> > But perhaps more importantly, I'm not at all sure libgcc is
> > kernel-safe. In particular, I'm not at all sure it *remains*
> > kernel-safe. Just as an example: can you guarantee that libgcc doesn't
> > implement integer division on some architecture by using the FP
> > hardware?
> >
> > There's been a few cases where not having libgcc saved us headaches. I
> > forget the exact details, but it was something like several years ago
> > that we had gcc start to generate some insane crap exception handling
> > for C code generation, and the fact that we didn't include libgcc was
> > what made us catch it because of the resulting link error.
> >
> > libgcc just isn't reliable in kernel space. I'm not opposed to some
> > random architecture using it (arch/tile does include "-lgcc" for
> > example), but I _do_ object to the notion that we say "let's use
> > libgcc in general".
> >
> > So no. I do not believe that the occasional pain of a few people who
> > do 64-bit divides incorrectly is a good enough argument to start using
> > libgcc.
> >
> 
> Does your objection still apply if we supplied our own implementations 
> of a handful of libgcc helpers?

It's not just a matter of "how fast is the divide".  The 32-bit build
error is supposed to prompt people to ask "did I really need to use 64
bits".

That *used* to work.  A bit.  But nowadays the errors are detected so
late that the fix (often by someone other than the original developer)
is to just slap a do_div() in there.

And as the build error no longer appears to be having the desired
effect, I too have been wondering if it's time to just give up and
implement __udivdi and friends.

Or maybe there's a way of breaking 64-bit builds instead ;)
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/