Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932375Ab0GOEmG (ORCPT ); Thu, 15 Jul 2010 00:42:06 -0400 Received: from fgwmail5.fujitsu.co.jp ([192.51.44.35]:42645 "EHLO fgwmail5.fujitsu.co.jp" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932274Ab0GOEmF convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Thu, 15 Jul 2010 00:42:05 -0400 X-SecurityPolicyCheck-FJ: OK by FujitsuOutboundMailChecker v1.3.1 From: KOSAKI Motohiro To: john stultz Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/11] x86: Fix vtime/file timestamp inconsistencies Cc: kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com, LKML , Jiri Olsa , Thomas Gleixner , Oleg Nesterov In-Reply-To: <1279162298.3372.65.camel@localhost> References: <20100715101317.CB56.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com> <1279162298.3372.65.camel@localhost> Message-Id: <20100715133926.B8EE.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT X-Mailer: Becky! ver. 2.50.07 [ja] Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2010 13:41:59 +0900 (JST) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2123 Lines: 47 > On Thu, 2010-07-15 at 10:51 +0900, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote: > > > On Wed, 2010-07-14 at 11:40 +0900, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote: > > > > Hi > > > > > > > > > Due to vtime calling vgettimeofday(), its possible that an application > > > > > could call time();create("stuff",O_RDRW); only to see the file's > > > > > creation timestamp to be before the value returned by time. > > > > > > > > Just dumb question. > > > > > > > > Almost application are using gettimeofday() instead time(). It mean > > > > your fix don't solve almost application. > > > > > > Correct, filesystem timestamps and gettimeofday can still seem > > > inconsistently ordered. But that is expected. > > > > > > Because of granularity differences (one interface is only tick > > > resolution, the other is clocksource resolution), we can't interleave > > > the two interfaces (time and gettimeofday, respectively) and expect to > > > get ordered results. > > > > hmmm... > > Yes, times() vs gettimeofday() mekes no sense. nobody want this. but > > I don't understand why we can ignore gettimeofday() vs file-tiemstamp. > > Oh.. and another bit worth mentioning again: > clock_gettime(CLOCK_REALTIME_COARSE, ...) provides tick-granular output > that should be able to be correctly interleaved with filesystem > timestmaps. > > So if there's an application that is using gettimeofday() for logging > and having problems trying to map the log timestmaps with filesystem > timestamps, they can use clock_gettime(CLOCK_REALTIME_COARSE,...) to do > so correctly. Correct. but I disagree few bit . 1) application naturally assume time don't makes interleaving. so almost all applications don't have such care. 2) tick-granular fs timestamp is only current implementaion. perhaps we will change it later. so, applications don't want to assume fs timestamp granularity is equal to CLOCK_REALTIME_COARSE. -- 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/