All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: George Anzinger <george@mvista.com>
To: Tim Schmielau <tim@physik3.uni-rostock.de>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>,
	OGAWA Hirofumi <hirofumi@mail.parknet.co.jp>,
	albert@users.sourceforge.net, lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	voland@dmz.com.pl, nicolas.george@ens.fr,
	kaukasoi@elektroni.ee.tut.fi, johnstul@us.ibm.com,
	david+powerix@blue-labs.org
Subject: Re: boot time, process start time, and NOW time
Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2004 17:31:06 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <412151CA.4060902@mvista.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.53.0408170055180.14122@gockel.physik3.uni-rostock.de>

Tim Schmielau wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Aug 2004, Andrew Morton wrote:
> 
> 
>>OGAWA Hirofumi <hirofumi@mail.parknet.co.jp> wrote:
>>
>>>Albert Cahalan <albert@users.sf.net> writes:
>>>
>>>
>>>>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
>>>
>>>Start-time and uptime is using different source. Looks like the
>>>jiffies was added bogus lost counts.
>>>
>>>quick hack. Does this change the behavior?
>>
>>Where did this all end up?  Complaints about wandering start times are
>>persistent, and it'd be nice to get some fix in place...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The trouble seems to be due to the patch below, part of a larger cleanup
> (http://linus.bkbits.net:8080/linux-2.5/cset%403ef4851dGg0fxX58R9Zv8SIq9fzNmQ?nav=index.html|src/.|src/fs|src/fs/proc|related/fs/proc/proc_misc.c)
> by George.
> 
> Quoting from the changelog entry:
> 
> "Changes the uptime code to use the posix_clock_monotonic notion of 
> uptime instead of the jiffies.  This time will track NTP changes and so should 
> be better than your standard wristwatch (if your using ntp)."
> 
> George is absolutely right that it's more precise. However, it's also 
> inconsistent with the process start times which use plain uncorrected 
> jiffies. ps stumbles over this inconsistency.
> 
> Simple fix: revert the patch below.
> Complicated fix: correct process start times in fork.c (no patch provided, 
> too complicated for me to do).
> 
> George?

Hm...  That patch was for a reason...  It seems to me that doing anything short 
of putting "xtime" (or better, clock_gettime() :)) in at fork time is not going 
to fix anything.   As written the start_time in the task_struct is fixed.  If 
"now - uptime + time_from_boot_to_process_start" it is wandering, it must be the 
fault of "now - uptime".  Since this seems to be wandering, and we corrected 
uptime in the referenced patch, is it safe to assume that "now" is actually 
being computed from "jiffies" rather than a gettimeofday()?

Seems like that is where we should be changing things.


-- 
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


  parent reply	other threads:[~2004-08-17  0:31 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 57+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2004-06-22 23:57 boot time, process start time, and NOW time Albert Cahalan
2004-06-28 17:56 ` 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 [this message]
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=412151CA.4060902@mvista.com \
    --to=george@mvista.com \
    --cc=akpm@osdl.org \
    --cc=albert@users.sourceforge.net \
    --cc=david+powerix@blue-labs.org \
    --cc=hirofumi@mail.parknet.co.jp \
    --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.