From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>
To: Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@osdl.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@digeo.com>, john stultz <johnstul@us.ibm.com>,
Linux Kernel list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Time precision, adjtime(x) vs. gettimeofday
Date: Wed, 08 Oct 2003 20:43:02 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1065638582.895.20.camel@gaston> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20031008112510.06ae1ebd.shemminger@osdl.org>
> The following will prevent adjtime from causing time regression.
> It delays starting the adjtime mechanism for one tick, and
> keeps gettimeofday inside the window.
>
> Only fixes i386, but changes to other arch would be similar.
>
> Running a simple clock test program and playing with adjtime demonstrates
> that this fixes the problem (and 2.6.0-test6 is broken).
> But given the fragile nature of the timer code, it should go through some
> more testing before inclusion. Andrew could you put this in the next
> -mm tree?
I like that solution. There is still a possible small issue
in 2.4 but I don't think we need to care about it (see below)
Note about the 2.4 SMP race I talked about, x86 is indeed safe,
as it also uses (jiffies - wall_jiffies) to adjust the offset,
I missed it at first as it's not done from the do_gettimeoffset()
function where I was looking for it.
However, that that means we may apply more than one jiffie to
xtime at once, thus the above workaround would still have a small
hole. But since that happens only with insane interrupt latencies
that I don't expect to see in real life, it's probably a non-issue.
2.6 should always have jiffies and wall_jiffies in perfect sync
as they are manipulated within the same write_lock block.
Ben.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2003-10-08 18:44 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2003-10-08 13:32 Time precision, adjtime(x) vs. gettimeofday Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2003-10-08 15:48 ` Gabriel Paubert
2003-10-08 16:22 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2003-10-08 17:50 ` Gabriel Paubert
2003-10-08 18:22 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2003-10-08 18:25 ` [PATCH] " Stephen Hemminger
2003-10-08 18:43 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt [this message]
2003-10-08 19:11 ` john stultz
2003-10-08 22:17 ` Pavel Machek
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1065638582.895.20.camel@gaston \
--to=benh@kernel.crashing.org \
--cc=akpm@digeo.com \
--cc=johnstul@us.ibm.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=shemminger@osdl.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.