lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Jun]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: nanosleep() uses CLOCK_MONOTONIC, should be CLOCK_REALTIME?
On Tue, 24 Jun 2008, Michael Kerrisk wrote:
> > If you check the man page for clock_settime, it specifically
> > mentions that pending relative timer (including nanosleep) aren't affected
> > by the changed time, thus if CLOCK_MONOTONIC and CLOCK_REALTIME advance
> > equally, it doesn't matter which you use for relative timer.
>
> Well, I was going to say that that's just a man page, and man page
> authors are fallible ;-). But then I went and had a look at the POSIX
> spec for clock_settime(). It includes the following paragraph:
>
> Setting the value of the CLOCK_REALTIME clock via clock_set-
> time() shall have no effect on threads that are blocked waiting
> for a relative time service based upon this clock, including
> the nanosleep() function; nor on the expiration of relative
> timers based upon this clock. Consequently, these time
> services shall expire when the requested relative interval
> elapses, independently of the new or old value of the clock.
>
> So that rather flatly contradicts the alternative semantics that I
> suggested were possible in my reply to Bart a few minutes ago.
>
> So in my reading of things now, it looks as though the Linux
> implementation is probably fine, since the fact that relative
> timers/sleeps are explicitly unaffected by jumps in CLOCK_REALTIME
> means that the semantics are effectively the same as if the relative
> interval was measured against CLOCK_MONOTONIC (unless the two clocks
> counted time at different rates; not sure if that would be possible
> in theory, but certainly seems very unlikely in practice).

We use CLOCK_MONOTONIC for the relative timeouts simply to avoid
trickery vs. clock_settime(CLOCK_REALTIME). That's an kernel internal
implementation detail which does not have any visible effect to the
user space interface.

CLOCK_MONOTONIC and CLOCK_REALTIME are using the same timebase
internally and therefor we can safely use CLOCK_MONOTONIC for the
relative timeouts.

Thanks,

tglx


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-06-25 08:29    [W:1.294 / U:0.204 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site