linux-kernel - Re: timerfd_settime/timerfd

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: <alpine.DEB.2.11.1512301052520.28591@nanos>
Date:	Wed, 30 Dec 2015 10:57:56 +0100 (CET)
From:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:	Helge Deller <deller@....de>
cc:	Linux Kernel Development <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-parisc <linux-parisc@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: timerfd_settime/timerfd_gettime issue ?

On Tue, 29 Dec 2015, Helge Deller wrote:
> No, the patch below doesn't help.
> 
> I still see:
> [  644.916000] timerfd_settime: interval (sec=0, nsec=100000000) it_value (sec=0, nsec=100000000) 
> [  645.024000] timerfd_gettime: interval (sec=0, nsec=100000000) it_value (sec=0, nsec=103029949) 
> 

Right. It can't help. Sorry for the distraction.

Looking deeper I found the issue. It's caused by CONFIG_TIME_LOW_RES. See the
comment in hrtimer_start_range_ns(). We round the expiry time to the next
jiffies period to avoid short timeouts. Assuming you are running with HZ=250
this is exactly 4ms. So that's where your extra time comes from.

Not sure what to do about that.

Thanks,

	tglx






--
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/