From: George Anzinger <george@mvista.com>
To: john stultz <johnstul@us.ibm.com>
Cc: Albert Cahalan <albert@users.sourceforge.net>,
David Ford <david+powerix@blue-labs.org>,
linux-kernel mailing list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: /proc or ps tools bug? 2.6.3, time is off
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2004 15:06:22 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <403E7BEE.9040203@mvista.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1077760348.2857.129.camel@cog.beaverton.ibm.com>
john stultz wrote:
> On Wed, 2004-02-25 at 13:10, George Anzinger wrote:
>
>>Albert Cahalan wrote:
>>
>>>This is NOT sane. Remeber that procps doesn't get to see HZ.
>>>Only USER_HZ is available, as the AT_CLKTCK ELF note.
>>>
>>>I think the way to fix this is to skip or add a tick
>>>every now and then, so that the long-term HZ is exact.
>>>
>>>Another way is to simply choose between pure old-style
>>>tick-based timekeeping and pure new-style cycle-based
>>>(TSC or ACPI) timekeeping. Systems with uncooperative
>>>hardware have to use the old-style time keeping. This
>>>should simply the code greatly.
>>
>>On checking the code and thinking about this, I would suggest that we change
>>start_time in the task struct to be the wall time (or monotonic time if that
>>seems better). I only find two places this is used, in proc and in the
>>accounting code. Both of these could easily be changed. Of course, even
>>leaving it as it is, they could be changed to report more correct values by
>>using the correct conversions to translate the system HZ to USER_HZ.
>
>
> Is this close to what your thinking of?
> I can't reproduce the issue on my systems, so I'll need someone else to
> test this.
More or less. I wonder if:
static inline long jiffies_to_clock_t(long x)
{
u64 tmp = (u64)x * TICK_NSEC;
div64(tmp, (NSEC_PER_SEC / USER_HZ));
return (long)x;
}
might be better as it addresses the overflow issue. Should be able to toss the
#if (HZ % USER_HZ)==0 test too. We could get carried away and do scaled math to
eliminate the div64 but I don't think this path is used enough to justify the
clarity ;) that would make.
-g
>
> thanks
> -john
>
> --- 1.5/include/linux/times.h Sun Nov 9 19:26:08 2003
> +++ edited/include/linux/times.h Wed Feb 25 17:39:11 2004
> @@ -7,7 +7,7 @@
> #include <asm/param.h>
>
> #if (HZ % USER_HZ)==0
> -# define jiffies_to_clock_t(x) ((x) / (HZ / USER_HZ))
> +# define jiffies_to_clock_t(x) (((x*TICK_NSEC*HZ)/NSEC_PER_SEC) / (HZ / USER_HZ))
> #else
> # define jiffies_to_clock_t(x) ((clock_t) jiffies_64_to_clock_t((u64) x))
> #endif
>
>
>
>
>
--
George Anzinger george@mvista.com
High-res-timers: http://sourceforge.net/projects/high-res-timers/
Preemption patch: http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/rml
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-02-26 23:09 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 36+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2004-02-25 1:58 /proc or ps tools bug? 2.6.3, time is off David Ford
2004-02-25 1:54 ` Albert Cahalan
2004-02-25 5:10 ` David Ford
2004-02-25 3:27 ` Albert Cahalan
2004-02-25 16:28 ` George Anzinger
2004-02-25 16:04 ` Albert Cahalan
2004-02-25 20:45 ` George Anzinger
2004-02-25 19:16 ` Albert Cahalan
2004-02-25 21:10 ` George Anzinger
2004-02-26 1:52 ` john stultz
2004-02-26 23:06 ` George Anzinger [this message]
2004-02-26 23:10 ` john stultz
2004-02-27 0:20 ` George Anzinger
2004-04-13 22:38 ` john stultz
2004-04-13 22:59 ` George Anzinger
2004-04-14 12:10 ` Tim Schmielau
2004-04-14 17:03 ` George Anzinger
2004-04-14 18:28 ` john stultz
2004-04-15 10:37 ` Petri Kaukasoina
2004-04-15 11:05 ` Tim Schmielau
2004-04-15 16:14 ` Petri Kaukasoina
2004-05-01 13:51 ` Tim Schmielau
2004-05-02 1:41 ` Andrew Morton
2004-05-02 1:59 ` Tim Schmielau
2004-05-04 2:40 ` john stultz
2004-05-04 6:12 ` Tim Schmielau
2004-05-04 14:59 ` john stultz
2004-05-04 16:50 ` Tim Schmielau
2004-05-07 0:33 ` George Anzinger
2004-05-07 1:21 ` john stultz
2004-05-07 20:41 ` George Anzinger
2004-05-07 21:38 ` john stultz
2004-02-26 23:14 ` George Anzinger
2004-02-25 9:14 ` Petri Kaukasoina
2004-02-25 9:18 ` Petri Kaukasoina
2004-02-25 21:39 ` David Ford
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=403E7BEE.9040203@mvista.com \
--to=george@mvista.com \
--cc=albert@users.sourceforge.net \
--cc=david+powerix@blue-labs.org \
--cc=johnstul@us.ibm.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.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.