Re: Incorrect behavior of timer_settime() for absolute dates in thepast

From: John
Date: Mon Nov 27 2006 - 09:31:52 EST


John wrote:

I'm playing with the POSIX timers API. My platform is x86 running Linux 2.6.18.1 patched with the high-resolution timer subsystem.

http://www.tglx.de/hrtimers.html

I'm seeing unexpected behavior from timer_settime().

int timer_settime(timer_t timerid, int flags,
const struct itimerspec *value, struct itimerspec *ovalue);

timer_settime() is used to arm a timer. If the TIMER_ABSTIME flag is set, then the timer should fire when the appropriate clock reaches the date specified by value. If that date is in the past, the timer should fire immediately.

The Open Group Base Specifications Issue 6 states:
http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/functions/timer_getoverrun.html


"If the flag TIMER_ABSTIME is set in the argument flags, timer_settime() shall behave as if the time until next expiration is set to be equal to the difference between the absolute time specified by the it_value member of value and the current value of the clock associated with timerid. That is, the timer shall expire when the clock reaches the value specified by the it_value member of value. If the specified time has already passed, the function shall succeed and the expiration notification shall be made."

In my tests, when timer_settime() is called with an expiration date in the past, the timer still takes some time to fire.

Here's a run-down of the code provided as an attachment:

I switch to a SCHED_RR scheduling policy. In other words, whenever my process wants the CPU, it gets it. (No other SCHED_RR or SCHED_FIFO processes on the system.) I mask the signal that will be delivered on timer expiration. I then arm a timer with an expiration date in the past, check whether the signal is pending, and block waiting for the signal. I then print how long I've had to wait.

# ./a.out
RESOLUTION=1 ns
NOW=969.735545919
SLEEPING 1 SECOND...
NOW=970.735581398
NOW=970.735613525
NOW=970.735749017
nsdiff=135492 ns i.e. 135.5 µs

Any ideas?

Is there a better forum to discuss this matter?

Regards.

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/