On Mon, 17 Mar 2003, Vitezslav Samel wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 14, 2003 at 02:48:59PM +0000, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 14, 2003 at 03:34:36PM +0100, Eric Piel wrote:
> > > I think lines like that from patch-2.5.64 are very suspicious to be
> > > related to the bug:
> > > + base->timer_jiffies = INITIAL_JIFFIES;
> > > + base->tv1.index = INITIAL_JIFFIES & TVR_MASK;
> > > + base->tv2.index = (INITIAL_JIFFIES >> TVR_BITS) & TVN_MASK;
> > > + base->tv3.index = (INITIAL_JIFFIES >> (TVR_BITS+TVN_BITS)) & TVN_MASK;
> > > + base->tv4.index = (INITIAL_JIFFIES >> (TVR_BITS+2*TVN_BITS)) &
> > > TVN_MASK;
> > > + base->tv5.index = (INITIAL_JIFFIES >> (TVR_BITS+3*TVN_BITS)) &
> > > TVN_MASK;
> >
> > No, I don't think so. Those lines are for starting `jiffies' at a very
> > high number so we spot jiffie-wrap bugs early on.
>
> The nanosleep() bug narrowed down to 2.5.63-bk2. That's version, the "initial
> jiffies" patch went in. And yes, it's on i686 machine.
You can easily check whether it's connected with this change by setting
INITIAL_JIFFIES to zero. This should exactly recover the previous
situation.
I.e., something like the following (untested, hand-crafted) patch:
--- linux-2.5.64/include/linux/time.h
+++ linux-2.5.64/include/linux/time.h
@@ -28,7 +28,7 @@
* Have the 32 bit jiffies value wrap 5 minutes after boot
* so jiffies wrap bugs show up earlier.
*/
- #define INITIAL_JIFFIES ((unsigned int) (-300*HZ))
+ #define INITIAL_JIFFIES 0
/*
* Change timeval to jiffies, trying to avoid the
Tim
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Mar 23 2003 - 22:00:19 EST