[lkml]   [2007]   [Aug]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: gettimeofday() jumping into the future
[ CCs added ]

On Thu, 2007-08-23 at 13:08 +0200, Michael Smith wrote:
> Hi,
> We've been seeing some strange behaviour on some of our applications
> recently. I've tracked this down to gettimeofday() returning spurious
> values occasionally.
> Specifically, gettimeofday() will suddenly, for a single call, return
> a value about 4398 seconds (~1 hour 13 minutes) in the future. The
> following call goes back to a normal value.
> This seems to be occurring when the clock source goes slightly
> backwards for a single call. In
> kernel/time/timekeeping.c:__get_nsec_offset(), we have this:
> cycle_delta = (cycle_now - clock->cycle_last) & clock->mask;
> So a small decrease in time here will (this is all unsigned
> arithmetic) give us a very large cycle_delta. cyc2ns() then multiplies
> this by some value, then right shifts by 22. The resulting value (in
> nanoseconds) is approximately 4398 seconds; this gets added on to the
> xtime value, giving us our jump into the future. The next call to
> gettimeofday() returns to normal as we don't have this huge nanosecond
> offset.
> This system is a 2-socket core 2 quad machine (8 cpus), running 32 bit
> mode. It's a dell poweredge 1950. The kernel selects the TSC as the
> clock source, having determined that the tsc runs synchronously on
> this system. Switching the systems to use a different time source
> seems to make the problem go away (which is fine for us, but we'd like
> to get this fixed properly upstream).
> We've also seen this behaviour with a synthetic test program (which
> just runs 4 threads all calling gettimeofday() in a loop as fast as
> possible and testing that it doesn't jump) on an older machine, a dell
> poweredge SC1425 with two p4 hyperthreaded xeons.
> Can anyone advise on what's going wrong here? I can't find much in the
> way of documentation on whether the TSC is guaranteed to be
> monotonically increasing on intel systems. Should the code choose not
> to use the TSC? Or should the TSC reading code ensure that the
> returned values are monotonic?
> Is there any more information that would be useful? I'll be on a plane
> for most of tomorrow, so might be a little slow responding.

The exact version of the kernel you're using might be good thing to
start with :-)

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: 2007-08-23 13:51    [W:0.112 / U:25.792 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site