From: Cyril Hrubis <chrubis@suse.cz>
To: ltp@lists.linux.it
Subject: [LTP] [patch V2 00/20] timer: Refactor the timer wheel
Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2016 17:11:27 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160623151127.GA20808@rei.lan> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160623135803.636.qmail@ns.sciencehorizons.net>
Hi!
> Two points:
> 1) sigtimedwait() is unusual in that it uses the jiffies timer. Most
> system call timeouts (including specifically the one in FUTEX_WAIT)
> use the high-resolution timer subsystem, which is a whole different
> animal with tighter guarantees, and
That is likely POSIX conformance bug, since POSIX explicitly states that
sigtimedwait() shall use CLOCK_MONOTONIC to measure the timeout.
"If the Monotonic Clock option is supported, the CLOCK_MONOTONIC clock
shall be used to measure the time interval specified by the timeout
argument."
> 2) The worst-case error in tglx's proposal is 1/8 of the requested
> timeout: the wakeup is after 112.5% of the requested time, plus
> one tick. This is well within your requested accuracy. (For very
> short timeouts, the "plus one tick" can dominate the percentage error.)
Hmm, that still does not add up to the number in the original email
where it says time_elapsed: 1.197057. As far as I can tell the worst
case for a tick is CONFIG_HZ=100 so one tick is 0.01s and even after
that we get 118.7% since we requested 1s. But that may be caused by the
fact that the test uses gettimeofday() to measure the elapsed time, it
should use CLOCK_MONOTONIC instead.
--
Cyril Hrubis
chrubis@suse.cz
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-06-23 15:11 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <20160617121134.417319325@linutronix.de>
[not found] ` <1466581044.3188.34.camel@gmail.com>
2016-06-22 8:44 ` [LTP] [patch V2 00/20] timer: Refactor the timer wheel Thomas Gleixner
2016-06-22 9:06 ` Mike Galbraith
2016-06-22 13:37 ` Mike Galbraith
2016-06-22 10:28 ` Cyril Hrubis
2016-06-23 8:27 ` Thomas Gleixner
2016-06-23 11:47 ` Cyril Hrubis
[not found] ` <20160623135803.636.qmail@ns.sciencehorizons.net>
2016-06-23 14:10 ` Thomas Gleixner
2016-06-23 15:11 ` Cyril Hrubis [this message]
2016-06-23 15:21 ` Thomas Gleixner
2016-06-23 16:31 ` Cyril Hrubis
[not found] ` <20160626190025.GC11162@amd>
2016-06-26 19:21 ` Arjan van de Ven
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=20160623151127.GA20808@rei.lan \
--to=chrubis@suse.cz \
--cc=ltp@lists.linux.it \
/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