On 4/10/25 2:52 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 08.04.2025 17:57, Oleksii Kurochko wrote:
@@ -23,6 +24,11 @@ static inline cycles_t get_cycles(void)
return csr_read(CSR_TIME);
}
+static inline s_time_t ticks_to_ns(uint64_t ticks)
+{
+ return muldiv64(ticks, SECONDS(1), 1000 * cpu_khz);
+}
Why the extra multiplication by 1000? I.e. why not
"muldiv64(ticks, MILLISECONDS(1), cpu_khz)", getting away with just one
multiplication and a reduced risk of encountering intermediate overflow
(affecting only hypothetical above 4THz CPUs then)?
Multiplication by 1000 was needed to convert khz to hz, but yes, your option
would be better.
--- a/xen/arch/riscv/time.c
+++ b/xen/arch/riscv/time.c
@@ -4,10 +4,17 @@
#include <xen/init.h>
#include <xen/lib.h>
#include <xen/sections.h>
+#include <xen/types.h>
unsigned long __ro_after_init cpu_khz; /* CPU clock frequency in kHz. */
uint64_t __ro_after_init boot_clock_cycles;
+s_time_t get_s_time(void)
+{
+ uint64_t ticks = get_cycles() - boot_clock_cycles;
+ return ticks_to_ns(ticks);
Nit: Blank line between declaration(s) and statement(s) please, as well as
ahead of the main "return" of a function.
Happy to make both adjustments upon committing, so long as you agree; then:
Reviewed-by: Jan Beulich<jbeul...@suse.com>
I'll be happy with that.
Thank you very much.
~ Oleksii
