From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>
To: Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@osdl.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@digeo.com>, john stultz <johnstul@us.ibm.com>,
Linux Kernel list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Time precision, adjtime(x) vs. gettimeofday
Date: Wed, 08 Oct 2003 20:43:02 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1065638582.895.20.camel@gaston> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20031008112510.06ae1ebd.shemminger@osdl.org>
> The following will prevent adjtime from causing time regression.
> It delays starting the adjtime mechanism for one tick, and
> keeps gettimeofday inside the window.
>
> Only fixes i386, but changes to other arch would be similar.
>
> Running a simple clock test program and playing with adjtime demonstrates
> that this fixes the problem (and 2.6.0-test6 is broken).
> But given the fragile nature of the timer code, it should go through some
> more testing before inclusion. Andrew could you put this in the next
> -mm tree?
I like that solution. There is still a possible small issue
in 2.4 but I don't think we need to care about it (see below)
Note about the 2.4 SMP race I talked about, x86 is indeed safe,
as it also uses (jiffies - wall_jiffies) to adjust the offset,
I missed it at first as it's not done from the do_gettimeoffset()
function where I was looking for it.
However, that that means we may apply more than one jiffie to
xtime at once, thus the above workaround would still have a small
hole. But since that happens only with insane interrupt latencies
that I don't expect to see in real life, it's probably a non-issue.
2.6 should always have jiffies and wall_jiffies in perfect sync
as they are manipulated within the same write_lock block.
Ben.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2003-10-08 18:44 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2003-10-08 13:32 Time precision, adjtime(x) vs. gettimeofday Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2003-10-08 15:48 ` Gabriel Paubert
2003-10-08 16:22 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2003-10-08 17:50 ` Gabriel Paubert
2003-10-08 18:22 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2003-10-08 18:25 ` [PATCH] " Stephen Hemminger
2003-10-08 18:43 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt [this message]
2003-10-08 19:11 ` john stultz
2003-10-08 22:17 ` Pavel Machek
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=1065638582.895.20.camel@gaston \
--to=benh@kernel.crashing.org \
--cc=akpm@digeo.com \
--cc=johnstul@us.ibm.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=shemminger@osdl.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