On Fri, 22 Feb 2013, John Stultz wrote:
> On 02/21/2013 02:51 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > Use the shadow timekeeper to do the update_wall_time() adjustments and
> > then copy it over to the real timekeeper.
> >
> > Keep the shadow timekeeper in sync when updating stuff outside of
> > update_wall_time().
> >
> > This allows us to limit the timekeeper_seq hold time to the update of
> > the real timekeeper and the vsyscall data in the next patch.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner<t...@linutronix.de>
> > ---
>
> So up to here it all looks ok to me (and not so different from my earlier
> attempts at the same).
>
> The only gotcha here that I realized with my earlier patches, is that in order
> to do the shadow copy update properly, we are also going to need to merge the
> NTP state data into the timekeeper. Otherwise, we could run into odd cases
> where as we update the shadow copy, we change the NTP state which then would
> affect the non-shadow timekeeping state that is about to be updated. One
> example: A the leap second lands, and the tai offset gets bumped in the ntp
> state, while we do a similar counter adjustment to the shadow-copy. Then
> before the real/active timekeeper is updated, someone gets the tai offset and
> applies it to that pre-update timekeeper state, and gets an invalid tai time.
>
> The down side is that the NTP state data is fairly large, and so adding it to
> the timekeeper will cause the memcopys to be a bit more painful.
>
> I'm looking at the NTP code now to try to see if we can bound where the NTP
> state is accessed, so we can maybe thin out what ntp state is linked to
> timekeeper updates, and only move that data over to the timekeeper.
Hmm. Can we block the NTP data readout while we are doing the update ?
Thanks,
tglx
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
