From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261435AbVGYTB7 (ORCPT ); Mon, 25 Jul 2005 15:01:59 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261432AbVGYTB7 (ORCPT ); Mon, 25 Jul 2005 15:01:59 -0400 Received: from prgy-npn1.prodigy.com ([207.115.54.37]:24591 "EHLO oddball.prodigy.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261431AbVGYTBV (ORCPT ); Mon, 25 Jul 2005 15:01:21 -0400 Message-ID: <42E537D1.6000100@tmr.com> Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2005 15:04:49 -0400 From: Bill Davidsen User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7.8) Gecko/20050511 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: george@mvista.com CC: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] Re: itimer oddness in 2.6.12 References: <20050722171657.GG4311@real.com> <42E14735.1090205@grupopie.com> <20050722205825.GB6476@real.com> <42E1A208.8060408@mvista.com> In-Reply-To: <42E1A208.8060408@mvista.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org George Anzinger wrote: > Tom Marshall wrote: > >> On Fri, Jul 22, 2005 at 08:21:25PM +0100, Paulo Marques wrote: >> >>> Tom Marshall wrote: >>> >>>> The patch to fix "setitimer timer expires too early" is causing >>>> issues for >>>> the Helix server. We have a timer processs that updates the server's >>>> timestamp on an itimer and it expects the signal to be delivered at >>>> roughly >>>> the interval retrieved from getitimer. This is very consistent on >>>> every >>>> platform, including Linux up to 2.6.11, but breaks on 2.6.12. On >>>> 2.6.12, >>>> setting the itimer to 10ms and retrieving the actual interval from >>>> getitimer >>>> reports 10.998ms, but the timer interrupts are consistently >>>> delivered at >>>> roughly 11.998ms. >>> >>> >>> Unfortunately, this is not so clear cut as it seems :( > > > Oops! That patch is wrong. The +1 should be applied to the initial > interval _only_. We KNOW when the repeating intervals start (i.e. at > the jiffie edge) and don't need to adjust them. The patch, however, > incorrectly, rolls them all into one. The attach patch should fix the > problem. Warnning, it compiles and boots, but I have not tested it. Can this get into 2.6.13? Or stable if it's too late? This would appear to be a fix to a visible problem. -- -bill davidsen (davidsen@tmr.com) "The secret to procrastination is to put things off until the last possible moment - but no longer" -me