From: Albert Cahalan <albert@users.sf.net>
To: linux-kernel mailing list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Cc: voland@dmz.com.pl, nicolas.george@ens.fr,
kaukasoi@elektroni.ee.tut.fi, tim@physik3.uni-rostock.de,
george@mvista.com, johnstul@us.ibm.com,
david+powerix@blue-labs.org, Andrew Morton OSDL <akpm@osdl.org>
Subject: boot time, process start time, and NOW time
Date: 22 Jun 2004 19:57:14 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1087948634.9831.1154.camel@cube> (raw)
Even with the 2.6.7 kernel, I'm still getting reports of process
start times wandering. Here is an example:
"About 12 hours since reboot to 2.6.7 there was already a
difference of about 7 seconds between the real start time
and the start time reported by ps. Now, 24 hours since reboot
the difference is 10 seconds."
The calculation used is:
now - uptime + time_from_boot_to_process_start
The code shown below works great on a 2.4.xx or earlier kernel.
It generally relys on USER_HZ, which is supposedly in our ABI.
I have a feeling we'll forever be chasing bugs related to not
using a PLL to drive the clock tick at exactly HZ ticks per second.
Perhaps the DragonflyBSD code could be stolen. Anyway, the code:
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
unsigned long seconds_since_1970 = time(NULL);
unsigned long seconds_since_boot = uptime(0,0);
unsigned long time_of_boot = seconds_since_1970 - seconds_since_boot;
int pr_stime(char *restrict const outbuf, const proc_t *restrict const pp){
struct tm *proc_time;
struct tm *our_time;
time_t t;
const char *fmt;
int tm_year;
int tm_yday;
our_time = localtime(&seconds_since_1970); /* not reentrant */
tm_year = our_time->tm_year;
tm_yday = our_time->tm_yday;
t = time_of_boot + pp->start_time / Hertz;
proc_time = localtime(&t); /* not reentrant, this corrupts our_time */
fmt = "%H:%M"; /* 03:02 23:59 */
if(tm_yday != proc_time->tm_yday) fmt = "%b%d"; /* Jun06 Aug27 */
if(tm_year != proc_time->tm_year) fmt = "%Y"; /* 1991 2001 */
return strftime(outbuf, 42, fmt, proc_time);
}
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
next reply other threads:[~2004-06-23 2:19 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 57+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2004-06-22 23:57 Albert Cahalan [this message]
2004-06-28 17:56 ` boot time, process start time, and NOW time OGAWA Hirofumi
2004-08-16 19:41 ` Andrew Morton
2004-08-16 21:49 ` john stultz
2004-08-16 23:08 ` Tim Schmielau
2004-08-16 23:56 ` Tim Schmielau
2004-08-17 0:21 ` john stultz
2004-08-17 0:37 ` George Anzinger
2004-08-17 0:49 ` john stultz
2004-08-17 0:31 ` George Anzinger
2004-08-16 22:32 ` Albert Cahalan
2004-08-17 1:26 ` George Anzinger
2004-08-16 23:08 ` Albert Cahalan
2004-08-17 1:54 ` James Courtier-Dutton
2004-08-17 2:03 ` Lee Revell
2004-08-17 20:52 ` George Anzinger
2004-08-17 6:56 ` Tim Schmielau
2004-08-17 20:07 ` john stultz
2004-08-17 20:13 ` [RFC] New timeofday implementation proposal john stultz
2004-08-17 20:58 ` [RFC] New timeofday code john stultz
2004-09-01 23:16 ` [RFC] New timeofday implementation proposal Christoph Lameter
2004-08-16 23:24 ` boot time, process start time, and NOW time Albert Cahalan
2004-08-17 19:00 ` john stultz
2004-08-17 17:41 ` Albert Cahalan
2004-08-17 20:58 ` john stultz
2004-08-17 20:25 ` [PATCH] " Tim Schmielau
2004-08-17 22:24 ` George Anzinger
2004-08-17 22:37 ` john stultz
2004-08-17 23:07 ` Tim Schmielau
2004-08-18 0:11 ` john stultz
2004-08-17 22:19 ` Albert Cahalan
2004-08-18 1:09 ` john stultz
2004-08-17 22:45 ` Albert Cahalan
2004-08-18 7:42 ` Tim Schmielau
2004-08-19 19:15 ` Petri Kaukasoina
2004-08-26 11:04 ` Andrew Morton
2004-08-26 12:07 ` Tim Schmielau
2004-08-30 23:00 ` Tim Schmielau
2004-08-30 23:38 ` john stultz
2004-08-31 0:37 ` Albert Cahalan
2004-08-31 0:49 ` Tim Schmielau
2004-08-31 0:45 ` Tim Schmielau
2004-08-31 1:23 ` john stultz
2004-08-31 1:34 ` john stultz
2004-08-31 6:07 ` Tim Schmielau
2004-08-31 19:27 ` George Anzinger
2004-08-31 20:56 ` john stultz
2004-08-31 21:10 ` David Ford
2004-09-02 20:39 ` George Anzinger
2004-09-01 19:14 ` OGAWA Hirofumi
2004-09-02 20:58 ` George Anzinger
2004-09-02 21:38 ` OGAWA Hirofumi
2004-09-03 0:59 ` George Anzinger
2004-09-03 3:35 ` OGAWA Hirofumi
2004-09-03 7:31 ` George Anzinger
2004-09-03 7:51 ` Tim Schmielau
2004-09-03 7:15 ` Tim Schmielau
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=1087948634.9831.1154.camel@cube \
--to=albert@users.sf.net \
--cc=akpm@osdl.org \
--cc=david+powerix@blue-labs.org \
--cc=george@mvista.com \
--cc=johnstul@us.ibm.com \
--cc=kaukasoi@elektroni.ee.tut.fi \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=nicolas.george@ens.fr \
--cc=tim@physik3.uni-rostock.de \
--cc=voland@dmz.com.pl \
/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.