WARNING - OLD ARCHIVES

This is an archived copy of the Xen.org mailing list, which we have preserved to ensure that existing links to archives are not broken. The live archive, which contains the latest emails, can be found at http://lists.xen.org/
   
 
 
Xen 
 
Home Products Support Community News
 
   
 

xen-devel

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] Fix clock_gettime to increment monotonically onP

To: John Levon <levon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Keir Fraser <keir@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] Fix clock_gettime to increment monotonically onPV-domain/x86
From: Keir Fraser <Keir.Fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 15:18:16 +0100
Cc: Atsushi SAKAI <sakaia@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxxxx>
Delivery-date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 07:14:22 -0700
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20070615140007.GB14822@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
List-help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help>
List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xensource.com>
List-post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>
List-subscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Thread-index: AcevWAPaQmYewhtLEdyfcQAWy6hiGQ==
Thread-topic: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] Fix clock_gettime to increment monotonically onPV-domain/x86
User-agent: Microsoft-Entourage/11.3.3.061214


On 15/6/07 15:00, "John Levon" <levon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>> IIUC this would make it less likely to see time going backwards, but when
>> you do it'll be by a lot more (the size of your precision granularity), and
>> it'll occur when your time values are unlucky enough to be just on the wrong
>> sides of a boundary between two time intervals which map to different
>> lower-precision time values.
> 
> The idea is that it would never be wrong enough to hit that case (taken
> to extremes we wouldn't expect to see it go backwards by a minute!)

Then I don't understand what you're proposing (I thought you were just
shaving off least-significant bits, but it must be smarter than that).

 -- Keir



_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>