Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-26197-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:40f1:3f00::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:40f1:3f00::1;
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20231228122411.3189-1-maimon.sagi@gmail.com> <f254c189-463e-43a3-bc09-9a8869ebf819@app.fastmail.com>
 <CAMuE1bF0Hho4VwO6w3f+9z3j5TtscYzuAjj10MFt2mZXG2P8dQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <84d8e9d7-09ce-4781-8dfa-a74bb0955ae8@app.fastmail.com> <ZZ-ZNHgDsZwg9CaW@hoboy.vegasvil.org>
In-Reply-To: <ZZ-ZNHgDsZwg9CaW@hoboy.vegasvil.org>
From: Sagi Maimon <maimon.sagi@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2024 17:49:32 +0200
Message-ID: <CAMuE1bF4sSeiDr-jyebF6F8oRxGs1b2gtT39fTJ2JeaFabr6Ng@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] posix-timers: add multi_clock_gettime system call
To: Richard Cochran <richardcochran@gmail.com>
Cc: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>, Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>, tglx@linutronix.de, 
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>, 
	Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>, x86@kernel.org, 
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>, Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>, 
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>, Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>, 
	Sohil Mehta <sohil.mehta@intel.com>, Rick Edgecombe <rick.p.edgecombe@intel.com>, 
	Nhat Pham <nphamcs@gmail.com>, Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@sifive.com>, Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>, 
	Alexey Gladkov <legion@kernel.org>, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, 
	linux-api@vger.kernel.org, Linux-Arch <linux-arch@vger.kernel.org>, 
	Netdev <netdev@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Thu, Jan 11, 2024 at 9:31=E2=80=AFAM Richard Cochran
<richardcochran@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jan 02, 2024 at 12:29:59PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>
> > I think Andy's suggestion of exposing time offsets instead
> > of absolute times would actually achieve that: If the
> > interface is changed to return the offset against
> > CLOCK_MONOTONIC, CLOCK_MONOTONIC_RAW or CLOCK_BOOTTIME
> > (not sure what is best here), then the new syscall can use
> > getcrosststamp() where supported for the best results or
> > fall back to gettimex64() or gettime64() otherwise to
> > provide a consistent user interface.
>
> Yes, it makes more sense to provide the offset, since that is what the
> user needs in the end.
>
Make sense will be made on the next patch.
> Can we change the name of the system call to "clock compare"?
>
> int clock_compare(clockid_t a, clockid_t b,
>                   int64_t *offset, int64_t *error);
>
> returns: zero or error code,
>  offset =3D a - b
>  error  =3D maximum error due to asymmetry
>
> If clocks a and b are both System-V clocks, then *error=3D0 and *offset
> can be returned directly from the kernel's time keeping state.
>
> If getcrosststamp() is supported on a or b, then invoke it.
>
> otherwise do this:
>
>    t1 =3D gettime(a)
>    t2 =3D gettime(b)
>    t3 - gettime(c)
>
>    *offset =3D (t1 + t3)/2 - t2
>    *error  =3D (t3 - t1)/2
>
> There is no need for repeated measurement, since user space can call
> again when `error` is unacceptable.
>
Thanks for your notes, all of them will be done on the next patch (it
will take some time due to work overload).
The only question that I have is: why not implement it as an IOCTL?
It makes more sense to me since it is close to another IOCTL, the
"PTP_SYS_OFFSET" family.
Does it make sense to you?

> Thanks,
> Richard
>
>
>