[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20070514232301.69e27bbe.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Mon, 14 May 2007 23:23:01 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Eric Dumazet <dada1@...mosbay.com>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
john stultz <johnstul@...ibm.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
"bugme-daemon@...nel-bugs.osdl.org"
<bugme-daemon@...zilla.kernel.org>, dang@...too.org,
Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>, stable@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [Bugme-new] [Bug 8479] New: gettimeofday returning 1000000 in
tv_usec on core2duo
On Tue, 15 May 2007 08:06:52 +0200 Eric Dumazet <dada1@...mosbay.com> wrote:
> Andrew Morton a écrit :
> > On Mon, 14 May 2007 21:17:47 -0700 bugme-daemon@...zilla.kernel.org wrote:
> >
> >> http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8479
> >>
> >> Summary: gettimeofday returning 1000000 in tv_usec on core2duo
> >> Kernel Version: 2.6.21
> >> Status: NEW
> >> Severity: normal
> >> Owner: ak@...e.de
> >> Submitter: dang@...too.org
> >>
> >>
> >> Most recent kernel where this bug did *NOT* occur: 2.6.20
> >> Distribution: Gentoo
> >> Hardware Environment: core2duo T7200 (all reporters had this same CPU)
> >> Software Environment: Linux 2.6.21, glibc 2.5
> >> Problem Description:
> >>
> >> gettimeofday returns 1 - 1000000 in tv_usec, not 0 - 999999
> >> This does not happen on any of my AMD-based 32 or 64 bit boxes, only on my
> >> core2duo; I have 2 other reports of this problem, all on T7200's
> >>
> >> Steps to reproduce:
> >>
> >> call gettimeofday a lot. Eventually, you'll get 1000000 returned in tv_usec. My
> >> average is ~1 in 1000000 calls. I've attached my test program, with output from
> >> various boxes. One of the other reporters tried the test program too, and got
> >> similar output. .config will be attached too.
> >
> > err, whoops.
>
> I remember I already hit this and corrected it
>
> http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git;a=blobdiff;f=arch/x86_64/kernel/vsyscall.c;h=dc32cef961950915fbaa185e36ab802d5f7cea3b;hp=ba330f87067996a17495f7d03466d646c718b52c;hb=c8118c6c07f2edfd697aaa0b93e08c3b65a5a675;hpb=272a3713bb9e302e0455c894c41180a482d2c8a3
Oh, OK.
> Maybe a stable push is necessary ?
yup. Please always think of -stable when preparing fixes. I'm sure many
useful fixes are slipping past simply because those who _are_ looking out
for backportable fixes are missing things.
Greg, Chris: please consider c8118c6c07f2edfd697aaa0b93e08c3b65a5a675
for -stable, if it isn't already there.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists