From: Sytse Wielinga <sytse@swielinga.nl>
To: Richard Cochran <richardcochran@gmail.com>
Cc: John Stultz <johnstul@us.ibm.com>,
Prarit Bhargava <prarit@redhat.com>,
Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] [RFC] Potential fix for leapsecond caused futex related load spikes
Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2012 22:08:21 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20120702200821.GA31197@swielinga.nl> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20120702101606.GA16008@localhost.localdomain>
Hi Richard,
On Mon, Jul 02, 2012 at 12:16:08PM +0200, Richard Cochran wrote:
> I know you didn't like my (originally Michael Hack's) idea of keeping
> time in TAI, but wouldn't changing to an internal, continuous time
> scale (not necessary TAI) solve these sorts of timer issues?
Doesn't that actually make the problem of leap seconds worse, as you'd have to
start tabulating past leap seconds in the kernel?
Even worse, *future* leap seconds would need to be tracked and after they've
happened stored on disk, and loaded back into the kernel after booting, which
seems like a mess. The trouble here is that leap seconds are only announced a
short while before they happen, so there's no way to bake leap seconds into
the software; they need to be dynamically added by ntpd.
Or is there somehow some way to avoid that?
> There have been a number of clock/timer/leap bugs over the last
> years. Some of these might have been avoided by using a continuous
> scale, since no special timer actions would be needed during a leap
> second.
>
> The run time cost is low, just one additional test and addition when
> reading the time. It might be worth it for the peace of mind when
> the next leap second rolls around.
I don't know if reworking the system that's been in place for ages is a good
way to give us 'peace of mind'. Then again, I love to be enlightened :-)
Sytse Wielinga
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-07-02 20:15 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-07-01 15:28 Prarit Bhargava
2012-07-01 16:56 ` Prarit Bhargava
2012-07-01 17:28 ` John Stultz
2012-07-02 10:16 ` Richard Cochran
2012-07-02 16:58 ` John Stultz
2012-07-02 20:08 ` Sytse Wielinga [this message]
2012-07-03 9:23 ` Richard Cochran
2012-07-03 12:05 ` Sytse Wielinga
2012-07-03 13:41 ` Richard Cochran
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2012-07-01 9:36 John Stultz
2012-07-01 9:42 ` John Stultz
2012-07-01 12:00 ` Jan Ceuleers
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20120702200821.GA31197@swielinga.nl \
--to=sytse@swielinga.nl \
--cc=johnstul@us.ibm.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=prarit@redhat.com \
--cc=richardcochran@gmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®