Re: [RFC] possible erronous use of tick_usec in do_gettimeofday

[George Anzinger]

Joe Korty wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 25, 2003 at 11:57:55AM -0800, George Anzinger wrote:
>
> > Joe Korty wrote:
> >
> > > test10's version of do_gettimeofday is using tick_usec which is
> > > defined in terms of USER_HZ not HZ.
> >
> > We still have the problem that we are doing this calculation in usecs while 
> > the wall clock uses nsecs.  This would be fine if there were an even number 
> > of usecs in tick_nsec, but in fact it is somewhat less than (USEC_PER_SEC / 
> > HZ).  This means that this correction (if we are behind by 7 or more ticks) 
> > will push the clock past current time.  Here are the numbers:
> >
> > tick_nsec =999849 or 1ms less 151 ns.  So if we are behind 7 or more ticks 
> > we will report the time out 1 us too high.  (7 * 151 = 1057 or 1.057 usec).
> >
> > Question is, do we care?  Will we ever be 7ms late in updating the wall 
> > clock? As I recall, the wall clock is updated in the interrupt handler for 
> > the tick so, to be this late, we would need to suffer a long interrupt hold 
> > off AND the tick recovery code would need to have done its thing.  But this 
> > whole time is covered by a write_seqlock on xtime_lock, so how can this 
> > even happen?  Seems like it is only possible when we are locked and we then 
> > throw the whole thing away.
> >
> > A test I would like to see is to put this in the code AFTER the read unlock:
> >
> > if (lost )
> > 	printk("Lost is %d\n", lost);
> >
> > (need to pull "	unsigned long lost;" out of the do{}while loop to do 
> > this)
> >
> > In short, I think we are beating a dead issue.
>
>
> There are other issues too: the 'lost' calculation is a prediction
> over the next 'lost' number of ticks.  That prediction will be wrong
> if 1) adjtime goes to zero within that interval or, 2) adjtime was
> zero but went nonzero in that interval due to a adjtimex(2) call.
>
> Despite these flaws the patch replaces truly broken code with code
> that is good but slightly inaccurate, which is good enough for now.

Can you prove that "lost" is EVER non-zero in a case we care about?  I.e. a case 
where the read_seq will exit the loop?

I could be wrong here, but I don't think it can happen.  That is why I suggested 
the if(lost) test.

--
George Anzinger   george@xxxxxxxxxx
High-res-timers:  http://sourceforge.net/projects/high-res-timers/
Preemption patch: http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/rml

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/