Re: Proposal: Use hi-res clock for file timestamps

J. Bruce Fields
2010-08-19T02:33:24Z

On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 06:41:02PM -0700, john stultz wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 11:12 AM, J. Bruce Fields <bfields@fieldses.org> wrote:
> > I'm completely ignorant about higher-resolution time sources.  Any
> > recommended reading?  What resolution do they actually provide, what's
> > the expense of reading them, how reliable are they, and how do the
> > answers to those questions vary across different hardware and kernel
> > versions?  A quick look at drivers/clocksource/ doesn't suggest
> > simple answers.
>
> Yea, there aren't simple answers. Clocksource hardware varies
> drastically in resolution and access time across systems and
> architectures. Further, clocksources may change while the system is
> up, so we don't really expose the hardware resolution.
>
> On x86, access latency varies from ~50ns (TSC) to ~1.3us (ACPI PM).
> (And that is ignoring the PIT, which can be 18us per call - luckily
> almost no hardware uses that). The resolution similarly scales from
> sub-ns (TSC @ > 1ghz cpus) to ~279ns (ACPI PM). Of course, across
> architectures you will see even more variance.

The race in question occurs when you manage to check mtime between two
file data updates, with all three operations occurring within a clock
tick.

No idea if that's feasible in hundreds of nanoseconds.

I'm also not sure how to judge the access latency. Certainly a
microsecond is a lot compared to just reading a cached mtime value.

Will we ever see them go backwards? (So if I know I wrote to file B
after writing to file A, is there ever a case where I could end up with
an earlier mtime on B than A?)

--b.