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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox