[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150605141259.GA9406@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2015 16:12:59 +0200
From: Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Prarit Bhargava <prarit@...hat.com>,
Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@...hat.com>,
Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, Jiri Bohac <jbohac@...e.cz>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Shuah Khan <shuahkh@....samsung.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 4/4] time: Do leapsecond adjustment in gettime
fastpaths
On Fri, Jun 05, 2015 at 11:10:08AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> Firstly I would strongly suggest such applications not use UTC because
> of this, I think TAI was invented for just this reason.
So I wonder whether the bug in the original post affects TAI timers as
well...
> Secondly, how would John's patches help with this? Usespace loops
> reading time would be using the VDSO and would still not get the right
> time, and timers would be subject to the same IRQ latency that a hrtimer
> based leap second insert would, and would still very much not be in-sync
> across the cluster.
But we have a tick based insertion. (IIRC, it used to be hrtimer
based, but that was buggy, too).
Thanks,
Richard
--
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