Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S263801AbUDMW7Z (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Apr 2004 18:59:25 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S263804AbUDMW7Z (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Apr 2004 18:59:25 -0400 Received: from gateway-1237.mvista.com ([12.44.186.158]:9206 "EHLO av.mvista.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S263801AbUDMW7U (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Apr 2004 18:59:20 -0400 Message-ID: <407C70C1.6020906@mvista.com> Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2004 15:59:13 -0700 From: George Anzinger Reply-To: ganzinger@mvista.com Organization: MontaVista Software User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.2.1) Gecko/20030225 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: john stultz CC: Albert Cahalan , David Ford , linux-kernel mailing list Subject: Re: /proc or ps tools bug? 2.6.3, time is off References: <403C014F.2040504@blue-labs.org> <1077674048.10393.369.camel@cube> <403C2E56.2060503@blue-labs.org> <1077679677.10393.431.camel@cube> <403CCD3A.7080200@mvista.com> <1077725042.8084.482.camel@cube> <403D0F63.3050101@mvista.com> <1077760348.2857.129.camel@cog.beaverton.ibm.com> <403E7BEE.9040203@mvista.com> <1077837016.2857.171.camel@cog.beaverton.ibm.com> <403E8D5B.9040707@mvista.com> <1081895880.4705.57.camel@cog.beaverton.ibm.com> In-Reply-To: <1081895880.4705.57.camel@cog.beaverton.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 3681 Lines: 110 john stultz wrote: > On Thu, 2004-02-26 at 16:20, George Anzinger wrote: > >>john stultz wrote: >> >>>On Thu, 2004-02-26 at 15:06, George Anzinger wrote: >>> >>>>john stultz wrote: >>>> >>>>>On Wed, 2004-02-25 at 13:10, George Anzinger wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>Albert Cahalan wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>This is NOT sane. Remeber that procps doesn't get to see HZ. >>>>>>>Only USER_HZ is available, as the AT_CLKTCK ELF note. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>I think the way to fix this is to skip or add a tick >>>>>>>every now and then, so that the long-term HZ is exact. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Another way is to simply choose between pure old-style >>>>>>>tick-based timekeeping and pure new-style cycle-based >>>>>>>(TSC or ACPI) timekeeping. Systems with uncooperative >>>>>>>hardware have to use the old-style time keeping. This >>>>>>>should simply the code greatly. >>>>>> >>>>>>On checking the code and thinking about this, I would suggest that we change >>>>>>start_time in the task struct to be the wall time (or monotonic time if that >>>>>>seems better). I only find two places this is used, in proc and in the >>>>>>accounting code. Both of these could easily be changed. Of course, even >>>>>>leaving it as it is, they could be changed to report more correct values by >>>>>>using the correct conversions to translate the system HZ to USER_HZ. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Is this close to what your thinking of? >>>>>I can't reproduce the issue on my systems, so I'll need someone else to >>>>>test this. >>>> >>>>More or less. I wonder if: >>> >>>>static inline long jiffies_to_clock_t(long x) >>>>{ >>>> u64 tmp = (u64)x * TICK_NSEC; >>>> div64(tmp, (NSEC_PER_SEC / USER_HZ)); >>>> return (long)x; >>>>} >>>>might be better as it addresses the overflow issue. Should be able to toss the >>>>#if (HZ % USER_HZ)==0 test too. We could get carried away and do scaled math to >>>>eliminate the div64 but I don't think this path is used enough to justify the >>>>clarity ;) that would make. >>> >>>Sounds good to me. Would you mind sending the diff so Petri and David >>>could test it? >> >>Oops, I have been caught :) The above was composed in the email window. I >>don't have a 2.6.x kernel up at the moment and I don't have any free cycles... >>Late next week?? > > > Finally got a chance to go through my work queue and yikes! This is > seriously stale! As neither George or I have come to bat with a patch, > I'll attempt a swing. > > Albert/David: Would you mind testing the following to see if it resolves > the issue for you? > > George: Mind skimming this to make sure its close enough to what you > intended? Looks rather like exactly what I intended. -g > > thanks > -john > > > diff -Nru a/include/linux/times.h b/include/linux/times.h > --- a/include/linux/times.h Tue Apr 13 15:00:25 2004 > +++ b/include/linux/times.h Tue Apr 13 15:00:25 2004 > @@ -7,7 +7,12 @@ > #include > > #if (HZ % USER_HZ)==0 > -# define jiffies_to_clock_t(x) ((x) / (HZ / USER_HZ)) > +static inline long jiffies_to_clock_t(long x) > +{ > + u64 tmp = (u64)x * TICK_NSEC; > + x = do_div(tmp, (NSEC_PER_SEC / USER_HZ)); > + return (long)tmp; > +} > #else > # define jiffies_to_clock_t(x) ((clock_t) jiffies_64_to_clock_t((u64) x)) > #endif > > > > > -- George Anzinger george@mvista.com 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@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/