Messages in this thread Patch in this message | | | Date | Mon, 17 Mar 2003 14:55:14 +0100 (CET) | From | Tim Schmielau <> | Subject | Re: [BUG] nanosleep() granularity bumps up in 2.5.64 |
| |
On Mon, 17 Mar 2003, Vitezslav Samel wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 14, 2003 at 02:48:59PM +0000, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 14, 2003 at 03:34:36PM +0100, Eric Piel wrote: > > > I think lines like that from patch-2.5.64 are very suspicious to be > > > related to the bug: > > > + base->timer_jiffies = INITIAL_JIFFIES; > > > + base->tv1.index = INITIAL_JIFFIES & TVR_MASK; > > > + base->tv2.index = (INITIAL_JIFFIES >> TVR_BITS) & TVN_MASK; > > > + base->tv3.index = (INITIAL_JIFFIES >> (TVR_BITS+TVN_BITS)) & TVN_MASK; > > > + base->tv4.index = (INITIAL_JIFFIES >> (TVR_BITS+2*TVN_BITS)) & > > > TVN_MASK; > > > + base->tv5.index = (INITIAL_JIFFIES >> (TVR_BITS+3*TVN_BITS)) & > > > TVN_MASK; > > > > No, I don't think so. Those lines are for starting `jiffies' at a very > > high number so we spot jiffie-wrap bugs early on. > > The nanosleep() bug narrowed down to 2.5.63-bk2. That's version, the "initial > jiffies" patch went in. And yes, it's on i686 machine.
You can easily check whether it's connected with this change by setting INITIAL_JIFFIES to zero. This should exactly recover the previous situation. I.e., something like the following (untested, hand-crafted) patch:
--- linux-2.5.64/include/linux/time.h +++ linux-2.5.64/include/linux/time.h @@ -28,7 +28,7 @@ * Have the 32 bit jiffies value wrap 5 minutes after boot * so jiffies wrap bugs show up earlier. */ - #define INITIAL_JIFFIES ((unsigned int) (-300*HZ)) + #define INITIAL_JIFFIES 0
/* * Change timeval to jiffies, trying to avoid the
Tim
- 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/
| |