From: George Anzinger <george@mvista.com>
To: john stultz <johnstul@us.ibm.com>
Cc: Tim Schmielau <tim@physik3.uni-rostock.de>,
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, david+powerix@blue-labs.org
Subject: Re: boot time, process start time, and NOW time
Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2004 17:37:08 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <41215334.7050203@mvista.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1092702077.2429.88.camel@cog.beaverton.ibm.com>
john stultz wrote:
> On Mon, 2004-08-16 at 16:08, 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).
>
>
> Hmm. While that patch fixed the uptime proc entry, I thought the issue
> was with process start times. I'm looking at fixing the start_time
> assignment in proc_pid_stat(). My suspicion is that we need to use ACTHZ
> in jiffies64_to_clock_t().
I really don't see how the start_time that proc_pid_stat() is producing could be
anything but a constant. The complaint is that it moves, not that it is
incorrect, right?
>
> Something like the patch below.
>
> thanks
> -john
>
> ===== include/linux/times.h 1.6 vs edited =====
> --- 1.6/include/linux/times.h 2004-05-10 04:25:49 -07:00
> +++ edited/include/linux/times.h 2004-08-16 16:22:13 -07:00
> @@ -48,6 +48,7 @@
> * but even this doesn't overflow in hundreds of years
> * in 64 bits, so..
> */
> + x = (x * ACT_HZ)>>8; /* compensate for ACT_HZ != HZ */
> x *= TICK_NSEC;
> do_div(x, (NSEC_PER_SEC / USER_HZ));
> #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:[~2004-08-17 0:37 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 [this message]
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=41215334.7050203@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.