From: John Stultz <john.stultz@linaro.org>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Prarit Bhargava <prarit@redhat.com>,
Richard Cochran <richardcochran@gmail.com>,
stable <stable@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 4/5] timekeeping: Fix CLOCK_TAI timer/nanosleep delays
Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2013 10:31:02 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <52AA00E6.2040700@linaro.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20131212132518.GB16360@gmail.com>
On 12/12/2013 05:25 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * John Stultz <john.stultz@linaro.org> wrote:
>> A think-o in the calculation of the monotonic -> tai time offset
>> results in CLOCK_TAI timers and nanosleeps to expire late (the
>> latency is ~2x the tai offset).
>>
>> Fix this by adding the tai offset from the realtime offset instead
>> of subtracting.
> Hm, it looks like the whole CLOCK_TAI feature was rushed in, with not
> enough testing done.
I wouldn't say rushed (I sat on the patches for awhile), but there was a
hole in my testing and the order that I ran my automated tests had made
it seem that all was well.
To avoid this in the future, I've already committed improvements to my
test set, and will be adding additional timer latency checks soon.
> If the bugs extend to more than this two-liner then for -stable it
> might be better to just disable CLOCK_TAI (userspace can deal with it
> just fine), and queue up the right fixes for the next merge window or
> so.
I don't foresee further issues (famous last words, eh), but since I was
planning on keeping patch #4 and #5 for 3.14 anyway, we can wait till
those land upstream to decide if the two-liner is sufficient or if
disabling CLOCK_TAI in older -stable kernels is the right approach. That
sound ok?
thanks
-john
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-12-12 18:31 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <1386789098-17391-1-git-send-email-john.stultz@linaro.org>
2013-12-11 19:11 ` [RFC][PATCH 1/5] timekeeping: Fix lost updates to tai adjustment John Stultz
2013-12-11 19:11 ` [RFC][PATCH 2/5] timekeeping: Fix potential lost pv notification of time change John Stultz
2013-12-11 19:11 ` [RFC][PATCH 3/5] timekeeping: Avoid possible deadlock from clock_was_set_delayed John Stultz
2013-12-12 13:23 ` Ingo Molnar
2013-12-12 18:53 ` John Stultz
2013-12-12 16:34 ` Sasha Levin
2013-12-12 18:32 ` Sasha Levin
2013-12-12 18:59 ` John Stultz
2013-12-12 19:05 ` Sasha Levin
2013-12-12 19:13 ` John Stultz
2013-12-17 5:15 ` John Stultz
2013-12-17 6:41 ` Sasha Levin
2013-12-17 16:34 ` John Stultz
2013-12-11 19:11 ` [RFC][PATCH 4/5] timekeeping: Fix CLOCK_TAI timer/nanosleep delays John Stultz
2013-12-12 13:25 ` Ingo Molnar
2013-12-12 18:31 ` John Stultz [this message]
2013-12-13 14:10 ` Ingo Molnar
2013-12-11 19:11 ` [RFC][PATCH 5/5] timekeeping: Fix missing timekeeping_update in suspend path John Stultz
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=52AA00E6.2040700@linaro.org \
--to=john.stultz@linaro.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=prarit@redhat.com \
--cc=richardcochran@gmail.com \
--cc=stable@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
/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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).