Re: Proposal: Use hi-res clock for file timestamps

[J. Bruce Fields]

On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 06:41:02PM -0700, john stultz wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 11:12 AM, J. Bruce Fields <bfields@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > I'm completely ignorant about higher-resolution time sources. ÂAny
> > recommended reading? ÂWhat resolution do they actually provide, what's
> > the expense of reading them, how reliable are they, and how do the
> > answers to those questions vary across different hardware and kernel
> > versions? ÂA quick look at drivers/clocksource/ doesn't suggest
> > simple answers.
> 
> Yea, there aren't simple answers. Clocksource hardware varies
> drastically in resolution and access time across systems and
> architectures. Further, clocksources may change while the system is
> up, so we don't really expose the hardware resolution.
> 
> On x86, access latency varies from ~50ns (TSC) to ~1.3us (ACPI PM).
> (And that is ignoring the PIT, which can be 18us per call - luckily
> almost no hardware uses that). The resolution similarly scales from
> sub-ns (TSC @ > 1ghz cpus) to ~279ns (ACPI PM). Of course, across
> architectures you will see even more variance.

The race in question occurs when you manage to check mtime between two
file data updates, with all three operations occurring within a clock
tick.

No idea if that's feasible in hundreds of nanoseconds.

I'm also not sure how to judge the access latency.  Certainly a
microsecond is a lot compared to just reading a cached mtime value.

Will we ever see them go backwards?  (So if I know I wrote to file B
after writing to file A, is there ever a case where I could end up with
an earlier mtime on B than A?)

--b.
--
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/