[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Z-pKEYr01vEaQDIw@localhost>
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2025 09:53:53 +0200
From: Miroslav Lichvar <mlichvar@...hat.com>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: John Stultz <jstultz@...gle.com>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>,
Anna-Maria Behnsen <anna-maria@...utronix.de>,
Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>,
Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org,
kernel-team@...roid.com, Lei Chen <lei.chen@...rtx.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] time/timekeeping: Fix possible inconsistencies in
_COARSE clockids
On Thu, Mar 27, 2025 at 06:32:27PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 27 2025 at 16:42, Miroslav Lichvar wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 27, 2025 at 10:22:31AM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > To clearly see the difference with the new code, I made an attempt
> > to update the old linux-tktest simulation that was used back when the
> > multiplier adjustment was reworked, but there are too many missing
> > things now and I gave up.
>
> Can you point me to that code?
It's this thing: https://github.com/mlichvar/linux-tktest
> It would be probably useful to create a test mechanism which allows to
> exercise all of this in a simulated way so we actually don't have to
> wonder every time we change a bit what the consequences are.
Yes, that would be very nice if we could run the timekeeping code in a
deterministic simulated environment with a configurable clocksource,
timing of kernel updates, timing and values of injected adjtimex()
calls, etc. The question is how to isolate it.
--
Miroslav Lichvar
Powered by blists - more mailing lists