From: George Anzinger <george@mvista.com>
To: john stultz <johnstul@us.ibm.com>
Cc: Albert Cahalan <albert@users.sourceforge.net>,
David Ford <david+powerix@blue-labs.org>,
linux-kernel mailing list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: /proc or ps tools bug? 2.6.3, time is off
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2004 15:06:22 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <403E7BEE.9040203@mvista.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1077760348.2857.129.camel@cog.beaverton.ibm.com>
john stultz wrote:
> On Wed, 2004-02-25 at 13:10, George Anzinger wrote:
>
>>Albert Cahalan wrote:
>>
>>>This is NOT sane. Remeber that procps doesn't get to see HZ.
>>>Only USER_HZ is available, as the AT_CLKTCK ELF note.
>>>
>>>I think the way to fix this is to skip or add a tick
>>>every now and then, so that the long-term HZ is exact.
>>>
>>>Another way is to simply choose between pure old-style
>>>tick-based timekeeping and pure new-style cycle-based
>>>(TSC or ACPI) timekeeping. Systems with uncooperative
>>>hardware have to use the old-style time keeping. This
>>>should simply the code greatly.
>>
>>On checking the code and thinking about this, I would suggest that we change
>>start_time in the task struct to be the wall time (or monotonic time if that
>>seems better). I only find two places this is used, in proc and in the
>>accounting code. Both of these could easily be changed. Of course, even
>>leaving it as it is, they could be changed to report more correct values by
>>using the correct conversions to translate the system HZ to USER_HZ.
>
>
> Is this close to what your thinking of?
> I can't reproduce the issue on my systems, so I'll need someone else to
> test this.
More or less. I wonder if:
static inline long jiffies_to_clock_t(long x)
{
u64 tmp = (u64)x * TICK_NSEC;
div64(tmp, (NSEC_PER_SEC / USER_HZ));
return (long)x;
}
might be better as it addresses the overflow issue. Should be able to toss the
#if (HZ % USER_HZ)==0 test too. We could get carried away and do scaled math to
eliminate the div64 but I don't think this path is used enough to justify the
clarity ;) that would make.
-g
>
> thanks
> -john
>
> --- 1.5/include/linux/times.h Sun Nov 9 19:26:08 2003
> +++ edited/include/linux/times.h Wed Feb 25 17:39:11 2004
> @@ -7,7 +7,7 @@
> #include <asm/param.h>
>
> #if (HZ % USER_HZ)==0
> -# define jiffies_to_clock_t(x) ((x) / (HZ / USER_HZ))
> +# define jiffies_to_clock_t(x) (((x*TICK_NSEC*HZ)/NSEC_PER_SEC) / (HZ / USER_HZ))
> #else
> # define jiffies_to_clock_t(x) ((clock_t) jiffies_64_to_clock_t((u64) x))
> #endif
>
>
>
>
>
--
George Anzinger george@mvista.com
High-res-timers: http://sourceforge.net/projects/high-res-timers/
Preemption patch: http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/rml
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-02-26 23:09 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
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 [this message]
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=403E7BEE.9040203@mvista.com \
--to=george@mvista.com \
--cc=albert@users.sourceforge.net \
--cc=david+powerix@blue-labs.org \
--cc=johnstul@us.ibm.com \
--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