From: Tim Schmielau <tim@physik3.uni-rostock.de>
To: linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org
Subject: [Linux-ia64] Re: [BUG] nanosleep() granularity bumps up in 2.5.64
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 13:55:14 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <marc-linux-ia64-105590709806137@msgid-missing> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <marc-linux-ia64-105590709806094@msgid-missing>
On Mon, 17 Mar 2003, Vitezslav Samel wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 14, 2003 at 02:48:59PM +0000, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 14, 2003 at 03:34:36PM +0100, Eric Piel wrote:
> > > I think lines like that from patch-2.5.64 are very suspicious to be
> > > related to the bug:
> > > + base->timer_jiffies = INITIAL_JIFFIES;
> > > + base->tv1.index = INITIAL_JIFFIES & TVR_MASK;
> > > + base->tv2.index = (INITIAL_JIFFIES >> TVR_BITS) & TVN_MASK;
> > > + base->tv3.index = (INITIAL_JIFFIES >> (TVR_BITS+TVN_BITS)) & TVN_MASK;
> > > + base->tv4.index = (INITIAL_JIFFIES >> (TVR_BITS+2*TVN_BITS)) &
> > > TVN_MASK;
> > > + base->tv5.index = (INITIAL_JIFFIES >> (TVR_BITS+3*TVN_BITS)) &
> > > TVN_MASK;
> >
> > No, I don't think so. Those lines are for starting `jiffies' at a very
> > high number so we spot jiffie-wrap bugs early on.
>
> The nanosleep() bug narrowed down to 2.5.63-bk2. That's version, the "initial
> jiffies" patch went in. And yes, it's on i686 machine.
You can easily check whether it's connected with this change by setting
INITIAL_JIFFIES to zero. This should exactly recover the previous
situation.
I.e., something like the following (untested, hand-crafted) patch:
--- linux-2.5.64/include/linux/time.h
+++ linux-2.5.64/include/linux/time.h
@@ -28,7 +28,7 @@
* Have the 32 bit jiffies value wrap 5 minutes after boot
* so jiffies wrap bugs show up earlier.
*/
- #define INITIAL_JIFFIES ((unsigned int) (-300*HZ))
+ #define INITIAL_JIFFIES 0
/*
* Change timeval to jiffies, trying to avoid the
Tim
prev parent reply other threads:[~2003-03-17 13:55 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2003-03-14 14:34 [Linux-ia64] Re: [BUG] nanosleep() granularity bumps up in 2.5.64 (was: [PATCH] Eric Piel
2003-03-14 14:48 ` [Linux-ia64] Re: [BUG] nanosleep() granularity bumps up in 2.5.64 (was: [PATCH] settimeofday() n Matthew Wilcox
2003-03-14 19:29 ` [Linux-ia64] Re: [BUG] nanosleep() granularity bumps up in 2.5.64 (was: [PATCH] David Mosberger
2003-03-17 7:45 ` [Linux-ia64] Re: [BUG] nanosleep() granularity bumps up in 2.5.64 (was: [PATCH] settimeofday() n Vitezslav Samel
2003-03-17 13:55 ` Tim Schmielau [this message]
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=marc-linux-ia64-105590709806137@msgid-missing \
--to=tim@physik3.uni-rostock.de \
--cc=linux-ia64@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.