From: David Ford <david+powerix@blue-labs.org>
To: Albert Cahalan <albert@users.sourceforge.net>
Cc: linux-kernel mailing list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: /proc or ps tools bug? 2.6.3, time is off
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2004 00:10:46 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <403C2E56.2060503@blue-labs.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1077674048.10393.369.camel@cube>
Albert Cahalan wrote:
>On Tue, 2004-02-24 at 20:58, David Ford wrote:
>
>
>>Kernel 2.6.3, procps 3.2.0
>>
>># while [ 1 ]; do (ps aux|grep "grep ps aux" && date) ; sleep 1; done
>>root 20043 0.0 0.0 1504 456 pts/0 R 20:45 0:00 grep grep ps aux
>>Tue Feb 24 20:45:25 EST 2004
>>root 20062 0.0 0.0 1504 460 pts/0 S 20:45 0:00 grep grep ps aux
>>Tue Feb 24 20:45:26 EST 2004
>>root 20081 0.0 0.0 1504 460 pts/0 S 20:46 0:00 grep grep ps aux
>>Tue Feb 24 20:45:27 EST 2004
>>
>>Note the change in the timestamp as reported by 'ps' v.s. the time
>>reported by 'date'.
>>
>>Repeatable every time at 26 seconds after the minute +/- a portion of a
>>second.
>>
>>
>
>I'm not seeing it, with:
>
>procps both 3.1.8 and procps 3.2.0+
>kernel 2.6.0-test11
>library glibc 2.3
>hardware uniprocessor G4 Mac
>ntp none (and you can tell by my email!)
>
>Run "ps --info" to gather much of this data.
>
>Note that time is a very awkward thing. You boot up,
>with some incorrect clock. Then you adjust the time.
>Later, you may discover that your clock has been
>running too slow. So you adjust the frequency, but
>what about the time that has already passed? Should
>you change the boot time to represent what is now
>known about your clock? What if, by doing so, you
>cause some processes to have started before boot?
>Then again, perhaps due to temperature change, you
>discover that your clock frequency is wrong... This
>is without even getting into the concept of leap
>seconds, which are determined a few months in advance.
>
>Two guesses:
>
>1. leap seconds
>2. SMP, with cycle counters out of sync
>
>
I'm seeing it on two machines now, I'm going to test on more machines as
I get access. The second machine is my notebook with procps 3.1.15 on
it, and it does it at the 46 second mark, also 2.6.3.
I can see if a process long in the past would have a different time set
on it, but shouldn't the entry in /proc coincide with the system clock
that date is accessing? Or how many different "clocks" does the kernel
have going?
powerix conf.d # ps --info
BSD j OL_j
BSD l OL_l
BSD s OL_s
BSD u OL_u
BSD v OL_v
SysV -f (none)
SysV -fl (none)
SysV -j (none)
SysV -l (none)
procps version 3.1.15
Linux version 2.6.3
Compiled with: glibc 2.3, gcc 3.3
header_gap=-1 lines_to_next_header=1
screen_cols=91 screen_rows=29
personality=0x00000000 (from "unknown")
EUID=0 TTY=136,3 Hertz=100 PAGE_SIZE=4096 page_size=4096
sizeof(proc_t)=492 sizeof(long)=4 sizeof(KLONG)=4
archdefs: i386
namelist_file="<no System.map file>"
Actually, it seems that there is a -significant- time difference in this
phantom clock now, I suspended my notebook to bring it home from the
station, and now this time difference is greater than 9 minutes. I
suspect it's roughly 46 seconds plus the amount of time that my notebook
was suspended. Yes, I'm running ntpd.
root 16894 0.0 0.0 1544 484 pts/3 S Feb24 0:00 grep grep ps
Wed Feb 25 00:09:09 EST 2004
David
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-02-25 5:11 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 36+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2004-02-25 1:58 /proc or ps tools bug? 2.6.3, time is off David Ford
2004-02-25 1:54 ` Albert Cahalan
2004-02-25 5:10 ` David Ford [this message]
2004-02-25 3:27 ` Albert Cahalan
2004-02-25 16:28 ` George Anzinger
2004-02-25 16:04 ` Albert Cahalan
2004-02-25 20:45 ` George Anzinger
2004-02-25 19:16 ` Albert Cahalan
2004-02-25 21:10 ` George Anzinger
2004-02-26 1:52 ` john stultz
2004-02-26 23:06 ` George Anzinger
2004-02-26 23:10 ` john stultz
2004-02-27 0:20 ` George Anzinger
2004-04-13 22:38 ` john stultz
2004-04-13 22:59 ` George Anzinger
2004-04-14 12:10 ` Tim Schmielau
2004-04-14 17:03 ` George Anzinger
2004-04-14 18:28 ` john stultz
2004-04-15 10:37 ` Petri Kaukasoina
2004-04-15 11:05 ` Tim Schmielau
2004-04-15 16:14 ` Petri Kaukasoina
2004-05-01 13:51 ` Tim Schmielau
2004-05-02 1:41 ` Andrew Morton
2004-05-02 1:59 ` Tim Schmielau
2004-05-04 2:40 ` john stultz
2004-05-04 6:12 ` Tim Schmielau
2004-05-04 14:59 ` john stultz
2004-05-04 16:50 ` Tim Schmielau
2004-05-07 0:33 ` George Anzinger
2004-05-07 1:21 ` john stultz
2004-05-07 20:41 ` George Anzinger
2004-05-07 21:38 ` john stultz
2004-02-26 23:14 ` George Anzinger
2004-02-25 9:14 ` Petri Kaukasoina
2004-02-25 9:18 ` Petri Kaukasoina
2004-02-25 21:39 ` David Ford
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=403C2E56.2060503@blue-labs.org \
--to=david+powerix@blue-labs.org \
--cc=albert@users.sourceforge.net \
--cc=linux-kernel@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