From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: John Stultz <john.stultz@linaro.org>,
Tobias Waldekranz <tobias@waldekranz.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] timekeeping: handle epoch roll-over (2038) on 32-bit systems
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2013 14:34:59 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20130620123459.GA17359@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LFD.2.02.1306072308040.24812@ionos>
* Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> wrote:
> On Mon, 3 Jun 2013, John Stultz wrote:
> > On 06/03/2013 07:34 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > > Though even if we fix that we still need to twist our brains around
> > > the timespec/timeval based user space interfaces. That's going to be
> > > the way more interesting challenge.
> >
> > I'm curious if there are any there other ideas that folks are considering?
>
> Honestly, we have almost 25 years ahead of us to solve that. So why
> hurry? If Tobias thinks that his embedded system of today needs to
> survive 2038 without updating the kernel and all of userspace, then
> all I can do is wish him good luck. Albeit we should not waste 25
> years and run into another Y2K horror. :)
>
> The only solid solution is to implement a new set of syscalls (and
> there are not that many which are affected by this). The new syscalls
> should use a nanosecond based scalar time value and get rid of the
> timespec /timeval / time_t nonsense alltogether. That reduces the
> number of new syscalls significantly.
>
> That time value should be 64bit, also people might argue, that we are
> creating a new issue for the year 2554, i.e 541 years from now. I
> don't think we need to worry about that really. We have to leave our
> grand-grand-grand..grandchildren (~20 generations from now) a few
> unsolved problems!
>
> The evil plan to make this happen looks like this:
>
> 1) Convert the core code to u64 with a timespec based shadow
> infrastruture to avoid performance regressions in the first
> place.
>
> 2) Add new u64 based syscalls
>
> 3) Disable the timespec based shadow infrastructure five years
> from now to force all lazy buggers who ignored the new syscalls
> to fix their crap.
>
> 4) Deprecate the old syscalls 10 years from now
>
> 5) Remove the old syscalls 100 years from now so Linus won't hunt
> us for breaking userspace :)
50 years from now should be enough for most of us - beyond that there will
be no hunting, only haunting ... ;-)
Thanks,
Ingo
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-06-20 12:35 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-06-03 13:34 [PATCH] timekeeping: handle epoch roll-over (2038) on 32-bit systems Tobias Waldekranz
2013-06-03 14:34 ` Thomas Gleixner
2013-06-03 19:04 ` John Stultz
2013-06-07 21:53 ` Thomas Gleixner
2013-06-20 12:34 ` Ingo Molnar [this message]
2013-08-24 23:47 ` Michael Gilbert
2013-06-04 6:59 ` Tobias Waldekranz
2013-06-07 20:57 ` Thomas Gleixner
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=20130620123459.GA17359@gmail.com \
--to=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=john.stultz@linaro.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=tobias@waldekranz.com \
/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