linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] process cputimer is moving faster than its corresponding clock

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAHGf_=q5W1brnzmsK0bN9s07RXsRUyRoYKN347kySQs_3g2_Lg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Fri, 26 Apr 2013 22:15:42 -0400
From:	KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...il.com>
To:	Olivier Langlois <olivier@...llion01.com>
Cc:	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, schwidefsky@...ibm.com,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] process cputimer is moving faster than its corresponding clock

On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 9:51 PM, Olivier Langlois
<olivier@...llion01.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 2013-04-26 at 15:08 -0400, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
>> > I need to add that I can only confirm that to be true with
>> > sum_exec_runtime.
>> >
>> > To affirm it to be true for stime and utime would require more
>> > investigation. I didn't look them at all. I was only concerned with
>> > sum_exec_runtime.
>> >
>> > I will prepare a v2 of the patch accounting all the feedbacks that I
>> > received from KOSAKI Motohiro, Frederic Weisbecker and Peter Zijlstra
>> > and send it back here for further discussion.
>> >
>> > Thank you very much all!
>>
>> Do you mean your utime test case still failure? If you share your test-case,
>> I'm going to look at your issue too.
>>
> Sure with pleasure. My testcase is glibc-2.17/rt/tst-cputimer1.c
>
> That being said, it strictly test CPUCLOCK_SCHED timers. Hence my focus
> when modifying the code was strictly on sum_exec_runtime.
>
> If utime and stime components of cputimer are moving faster than their
> associated clock, this is something that I did not address.

Hmm... Sorry. I'm confused. 1) I haven't seen any glibc test failure
after applying
my patch. 2) tst-cputimer1.c only have CLOCK_PROCESS_CPUTIME_ID test and
don't have any utime, stime tests.

Please let me know if you've seen any failure after applying my patch.
--
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/