[lkml]   [2001]   [Oct]   [31]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [Patch] Re: Nasty suprise with uptime
On Oct 31, 2001  19:16 +0100, Tim Schmielau wrote:
> The idea was that all drivers that use the 32 bit jiffies counter have to
> be aware of the wraparound anyways, and won't see a difference.

Agreed. I also like the change that you initialize jiffies to a pre-wrap
value, so the jiffies wrap bugs can more easily be found/fixed.

> The race only happens for 64 bit accesses to jiffies, but hey, without
> the patch these values come out wrong _every_ time, so I believed a
> tiny window for a single wrong display of uptime every 497.1 days to be
> acceptable.

I would say that the race is so rare that it should not be handled, especially
since it adds extra code in the timer interrupt.

> + /* We need to make sure jiffies_high does not change while
> + * reading jiffies and jiffies_high */
> + do {
> + jiffies_high_tmp = jiffies_high_shadow;
> + barrier();
> + jiffies_tmp = jiffies;
> + barrier();
> + } while (jiffies_high != jiffies_high_tmp);

Maybe this could be condensed into a macro/inline, so that people don't
screw it up (and it looks cleaner). Like get_jiffies64() or so, for
those few places that really care about the full value and can't stand
a miniscule chance of a race (i.e. uptime output is not a candidate).

Cheers, Andreas
Andreas Dilger

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:12    [W:0.164 / U:0.204 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site