* timerfd read only gets single byte?
@ 2007-07-17 7:28 Michael Kerrisk
[not found] ` <750c918d0707170424v5e4187dducb1dcaeea5ad9db7@mail.gmail.com>
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Michael Kerrisk @ 2007-07-17 7:28 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Davide Libenzi; +Cc: lkml
Hi Davide,
While writing a test program to incorporate into the timerfd.2 man page, I
think I've found a bug. It looks like only the least significant byte of
ticks is being returned from read(2), even though I am providing a 4 byte
buffer.
The test program takes 3 command line arguments:
1) seconds for the initial expiration
2) seconds for the timer interval
3) number of timer expirations to catch before terminating
I tried running this program and suspending it for a few minutes, to see if
I could get a large overrun value. When I do this on 2.6.22-rc4 (the built
kernel I have to hand), I see the following:
============
$ ./timerfd_demo 1 1 500
0.000: timer started
1.005: read: 1; total=1
2.005: read: 1; total=2
3.005: read: 1; total=3
4.005: read: 1; total=4
5.006: read: 1; total=5
^Z
[1]+ Stopped ./timerfd_demo 1 1 500
$ date
Tue Jul 17 09:18:11 CEST 2007
$ date
Tue Jul 17 09:23:40 CEST 2007
$ fg
./timerfd_demo 1 1 500
339.769: read: 78; total=83
340.004: read: 1; total=84
341.004: read: 1; total=85
^C
==============
The after bringing the program back into the foreground, I would have
expected to get an overrun count of 334 or thereabouts, but it looks as
though I'm only getting the least significant byte from read(2).
Cheers,
Michael
/* Link with -lrt */
#define _GNU_SOURCE
#include <sys/syscall.h>
#include <unistd.h>
#include <time.h>
#if defined(__i386__)
#define __NR_timerfd 322
#endif
static int
timerfd(int ufd, int clockid, int flags, struct itimerspec *utmr) {
return syscall(__NR_timerfd, ufd, clockid, flags, utmr);
}
#define TFD_TIMER_ABSTIME (1 << 0)
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
// #include <sys/timerfd.h>
#include <time.h>
#include <unistd.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdint.h> /* Definition of uint32_t */
#define die(msg) do { perror(msg); exit(EXIT_FAILURE); } while (0)
static void
print_elapsed_time(void)
{
static struct timespec start;
struct timespec curr;
static int first_call = 1;
int secs, nsecs;
if (first_call) {
first_call = 0;
if (clock_gettime(CLOCK_MONOTONIC, &start) == -1)
die("clock_gettime");
}
if (clock_gettime(CLOCK_MONOTONIC, &curr) == -1)
die("clock_gettime");
secs = curr.tv_sec - start.tv_sec;
nsecs = curr.tv_nsec - start.tv_nsec;
if (nsecs < 0) {
secs--;
nsecs += 1000000000;
}
printf("%d.%03d: ", secs, (nsecs + 500000) / 1000000);
}
int
main(int argc, char *argv[])
{
struct itimerspec utmr;
int max_exp, tot_exp, tfd;
struct timespec now;
uint32_t exp;
ssize_t s;
if ((argc != 2) && (argc != 4)) {
fprintf(stderr, "%s init-secs [interval-secs max-exp]\n",
argv[0]);
exit(EXIT_FAILURE);
}
if (clock_gettime(CLOCK_REALTIME, &now) == -1)
die("clock_gettime");
/* Create a CLOCK_REALTIME absolute timer with initial
expiration and interval as specified in command line */
utmr.it_value.tv_sec = now.tv_sec + atoi(argv[1]);
utmr.it_value.tv_nsec = now.tv_nsec;
if (argc == 2) {
utmr.it_interval.tv_sec = 0;
max_exp = 1;
} else {
utmr.it_interval.tv_sec = atoi(argv[2]);
max_exp = atoi(argv[3]);
}
utmr.it_interval.tv_nsec = 0;
tfd = timerfd(-1, CLOCK_REALTIME, TFD_TIMER_ABSTIME, &utmr);
if (tfd == -1)
die("timerfd");
print_elapsed_time();
printf("timer started\n");
exp = 0; // ????? Without this initialization, the results from
// read() are strange; it appears that read() is only
// returning one byte of tick information, not four.
for (tot_exp = 0; tot_exp < max_exp;) {
s = read(tfd, &exp, sizeof(uint32_t));
if (s != sizeof(uint32_t))
die("read");
tot_exp += exp;
print_elapsed_time();
printf("read: %u; total=%d\n", exp, tot_exp);
}
exit(EXIT_SUCCESS);
}
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread[parent not found: <750c918d0707170424v5e4187dducb1dcaeea5ad9db7@mail.gmail.com>]
* Re: Fwd: timerfd read only gets single byte? [not found] ` <750c918d0707170424v5e4187dducb1dcaeea5ad9db7@mail.gmail.com> @ 2007-07-17 11:31 ` Davi Arnaut 2007-07-17 19:19 ` Davide Libenzi 0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread From: Davi Arnaut @ 2007-07-17 11:31 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Michael Kerrisk; +Cc: Davide Libenzi, lkml Michael Kerrisk wrote: > > Hi Davide, > > While writing a test program to incorporate into the timerfd.2 man page, I > think I've found a bug. It looks like only the least significant byte of > ticks is being returned from read(2), even though I am providing a 4 byte > buffer. > > The test program takes 3 command line arguments: > > 1) seconds for the initial expiration > 2) seconds for the timer interval > 3) number of timer expirations to catch before terminating > > I tried running this program and suspending it for a few minutes, to see if > I could get a large overrun value. When I do this on 2.6.22-rc4 (the built > kernel I have to hand), I see the following: > > ============ > $ ./timerfd_demo 1 1 500 > 0.000: timer started > 1.005: read: 1; total=1 > 2.005: read: 1; total=2 > 3.005: read: 1; total=3 > 4.005: read: 1; total=4 > 5.006: read: 1; total=5 > ^Z > [1]+ Stopped ./timerfd_demo 1 1 500 > $ date > Tue Jul 17 09:18:11 CEST 2007 > $ date > Tue Jul 17 09:23:40 CEST 2007 > $ fg > ./timerfd_demo 1 1 500 > 339.769: read: 78; total=83 > 340.004: read: 1; total=84 > 341.004: read: 1; total=85 > ^C > ============== > > The after bringing the program back into the foreground, I would have > expected to get an overrun count of 334 or thereabouts, but it looks as > though I'm only getting the least significant byte from read(2). > > Cheers, > > Michael > > [...] put_user copies sizeof(*ptr) bytes to user space. Signed-off-by: Davi Arnaut <davi@haxent.com.br diff --git a/fs/timerfd.c b/fs/timerfd.c index af9eca5..e9f73f5 100644 --- a/fs/timerfd.c +++ b/fs/timerfd.c @@ -140,7 +140,8 @@ static ssize_t timerfd_read(struct file *file, char __user *buf, size_t count, } spin_unlock_irq(&ctx->wqh.lock); if (ticks) - res = put_user(ticks, buf) ? -EFAULT: sizeof(ticks); + res = put_user(ticks, ((u32 __user *)buf)) ? -EFAULT : + sizeof(ticks); return res; } ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: Fwd: timerfd read only gets single byte? 2007-07-17 11:31 ` Fwd: " Davi Arnaut @ 2007-07-17 19:19 ` Davide Libenzi 0 siblings, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread From: Davide Libenzi @ 2007-07-17 19:19 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Davi Arnaut; +Cc: Michael Kerrisk, lkml On Tue, 17 Jul 2007, Davi Arnaut wrote: > Michael Kerrisk wrote: > > > > Hi Davide, > > > > While writing a test program to incorporate into the timerfd.2 man page, I > > think I've found a bug. It looks like only the least significant byte of > > ticks is being returned from read(2), even though I am providing a 4 byte > > buffer. > > > > The test program takes 3 command line arguments: > > > > 1) seconds for the initial expiration > > 2) seconds for the timer interval > > 3) number of timer expirations to catch before terminating > > > > I tried running this program and suspending it for a few minutes, to see if > > I could get a large overrun value. When I do this on 2.6.22-rc4 (the built > > kernel I have to hand), I see the following: > > > > ============ > > $ ./timerfd_demo 1 1 500 > > 0.000: timer started > > 1.005: read: 1; total=1 > > 2.005: read: 1; total=2 > > 3.005: read: 1; total=3 > > 4.005: read: 1; total=4 > > 5.006: read: 1; total=5 > > ^Z > > [1]+ Stopped ./timerfd_demo 1 1 500 > > $ date > > Tue Jul 17 09:18:11 CEST 2007 > > $ date > > Tue Jul 17 09:23:40 CEST 2007 > > $ fg > > ./timerfd_demo 1 1 500 > > 339.769: read: 78; total=83 > > 340.004: read: 1; total=84 > > 341.004: read: 1; total=85 > > ^C > > ============== > > > > The after bringing the program back into the foreground, I would have > > expected to get an overrun count of 334 or thereabouts, but it looks as > > though I'm only getting the least significant byte from read(2). > > > > Cheers, > > > > Michael > > > > [...] > > put_user copies sizeof(*ptr) bytes to user space. > > Signed-off-by: Davi Arnaut <davi@haxent.com.br > > > diff --git a/fs/timerfd.c b/fs/timerfd.c > index af9eca5..e9f73f5 100644 > --- a/fs/timerfd.c > +++ b/fs/timerfd.c > @@ -140,7 +140,8 @@ static ssize_t timerfd_read(struct file *file, char > __user *buf, size_t count, > } > spin_unlock_irq(&ctx->wqh.lock); > if (ticks) > - res = put_user(ticks, buf) ? -EFAULT: sizeof(ticks); > + res = put_user(ticks, ((u32 __user *)buf)) ? -EFAULT : > + sizeof(ticks); > return res; > } Yeah, thanks. But talking to Michael, we think it's better to use an u64 like we do in the eventfd. - Davide ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2007-07-17 19:19 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2007-07-17 7:28 timerfd read only gets single byte? Michael Kerrisk
[not found] ` <750c918d0707170424v5e4187dducb1dcaeea5ad9db7@mail.gmail.com>
2007-07-17 11:31 ` Fwd: " Davi Arnaut
2007-07-17 19:19 ` Davide Libenzi
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox