Re: [PATCH 2/3] x86/vdso: Rearrange do_hres() to improve code generation

[Andy Lutomirski]

> On Oct 4, 2018, at 11:00 PM, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
>> On Thu, 4 Oct 2018, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> index 18c8a78d1ec9..419de7552c2f 100644
>> --- a/arch/x86/entry/vdso/vclock_gettime.c
>> +++ b/arch/x86/entry/vdso/vclock_gettime.c
>> @@ -147,10 +147,9 @@ notrace static int do_hres(clockid_t clk, struct timespec *ts)
>> 
>>    do {
>>        seq = gtod_read_begin(gtod);
>> -        ts->tv_sec = base->sec;
>> +        cycles = vgetcyc(gtod->vclock_mode);
>>        ns = base->nsec;
>>        last = gtod->cycle_last;
>> -        cycles = vgetcyc(gtod->vclock_mode);
>>        if (unlikely((s64)cycles < 0))
>>            return vdso_fallback_gettime(clk, ts);
>>        if (cycles > last)
>> @@ -158,7 +157,7 @@ notrace static int do_hres(clockid_t clk, struct timespec *ts)
>>        ns >>= gtod->shift;
>>    } while (unlikely(gtod_read_retry(gtod, seq)));
>> 
>> -    ts->tv_sec += __iter_div_u64_rem(ns, NSEC_PER_SEC, &ns);
>> +    ts->tv_sec = base->sec + __iter_div_u64_rem(ns, NSEC_PER_SEC, &ns);
> 
> You cannot access base->sec outside of the seqcount protected region. It
> might have been incremented by now and you'll get a time jump by a full
> second.

Duh. Let me try this again.

> 
> Thanks,
> 
>    tglx
> 
>