RE: [PATCH 1/5] Add functions producing system time given a backing counter value

Hall, Christopher S
2015-07-29T01:41:39Z

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8", Size: 2275 bytes --]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Stultz [mailto:john.stultz@linaro.org]
> Sent: Monday, July 27, 2015 8:44 PM
> To: Hall, Christopher S
> Cc: Thomas Gleixner; Richard Cochran; Ingo Molnar; Kirsher, Jeffrey T;
> Ronciak, John; H. Peter Anvin; x86@kernel.org; lkml;
> netdev@vger.kernel.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] Add functions producing system time given a
> backing counter value
>
> On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 5:46 PM, Christopher Hall
> <christopher.s.hall@intel.com> wrote:
> > * counter_to_rawmono64
> > * counter_to_mono64
> > * counter_to_realtime64
> >
> > Enables drivers to translate a captured system clock counter to system
> > time. This is useful for network and audio devices that capture
> timestamps
> > in terms of both the system clock and device clock.
>
> Huh. So for counter_to_realtime64 & mono64, this seems to ignore the
> fact that the multiplier is constantly adjusted and corrected. So that
> calling the function twice with the same counter value may result in
> different returned values.
>
> I've not yet groked the whole patchset, but it seems like there needs
> to be some mechanism that ensures the counter value is captured and
> used in the same (or at least close) interval that the timekeeper data
> is valid for.

The ART (and derived TSC) values are always in the past. There's no
chance that we could exceed the interval. I don't think any similar
usage would be a problem either.

Are you suggesting that, for completeness, this be enforced by the
conversion function?

I do a check here to make sure that the current counter value isn't before
the beginning of the current interval:

timekeeping_get_delta()
...
if (cycle_now < tkr->cycle_last &&
tkr->cycle_last - cycle_now < ROLLOVER_THRESHOLD)
return -EAGAIN;

If tkr->cycle_last - cycle_now is large, the assumption is that
rollover occurred. Otherwise, the caller should re-read the counter
so that it falls within the current interval. In my "normal use"
testing, re-read never occurred.

Thanks for your input.

Chris

>
> thanks
> -john
ÿôèº{.nÇ+‰·Ÿ®‰­†+%ŠËÿ±éÝ¶\x17¥Šwÿº{.nÇ+‰·¥Š{±þG«éÿŠ{ayº\x1dÊ‡Ú™ë,j\a­¢f£¢·hšïêÿ‘êçz_è®\x03(­éšŽŠÝ¢j"ú\x1a¶^[m§ÿÿ¾\a«þG«éÿ¢¸?™¨è­Ú&£ø§~á¶iO•æ¬z·švØ^\x14\x04\x1a¶^[m§ÿÿÃ\fÿ¶ìÿ¢¸?–I¥