Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1682033 > unrolled thread

Re: [PATCH] timekeeping: Use proper timekeeper for debug code

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: [PATCH] timekeeping: Use proper timekeeper for debug code Stafford Horne <shorne@gmail.com> - 2017-07-06 06:00 +0200
    Re: [PATCH] timekeeping: Use proper timekeeper for debug code John Stultz <john.stultz@linaro.org> - 2017-07-06 06:10 +0200
      Re: [PATCH] timekeeping: Use proper timekeeper for debug code Stafford Horne <shorne@gmail.com> - 2017-07-06 07:00 +0200
        Re: [PATCH] timekeeping: Use proper timekeeper for debug code John Stultz <john.stultz@linaro.org> - 2017-07-06 07:10 +0200

#1682033 — Re: [PATCH] timekeeping: Use proper timekeeper for debug code

Hi tglx,

Sorry, to bother you, I thought maybe this you missed this one?  Let me
know if you want a resend.

-Stafford

On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 10:39:21AM -0700, John Stultz wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 6:21 AM, Stafford Horne <shorne@gmail.com> wrote:
> > When CONFIG_DEBUG_TIMEKEEPING is enabled the timekeeping_check_update()
> > function will update status like last_warning and underflow_seen on the
> > timekeeper.
> >
> > If there are issues found this state is used to rate limit the warnings
> > that get printed.
> >
> > This rate limiting doesn't really really work if stored in real_tk as
> > the shadow timekeeper is overwritten onto real_tk at the end of every
> > update_wall_time() call, resetting last_warning and other statuses.
> >
> > Fix rate limiting by using the shadow_timekeeper for
> > timekeeping_check_update().
> >
> > Fixes: commit 57d05a93ada7 ("time: Rework debugging variables so they aren't global")
> > Signed-off-by: Stafford Horne <shorne@gmail.com>
> 
> Interesting!  Thanks for submitting this! Out of curiosity, can you
> also talk about the underlying issue that made you come across this
> issue?
> 
> thanks
> -john

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1682035

On Wed, Jul 5, 2017 at 8:58 PM, Stafford Horne <shorne@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi tglx,
>
> Sorry, to bother you, I thought maybe this you missed this one?  Let me
> know if you want a resend.

No. Sorry, I've already got this queued. Apologies for not sending notice.

thanks
-john

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1682045

On Wed, Jul 05, 2017 at 09:06:11PM -0700, John Stultz wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 5, 2017 at 8:58 PM, Stafford Horne <shorne@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hi tglx,
> >
> > Sorry, to bother you, I thought maybe this you missed this one?  Let me
> > know if you want a resend.
> 
> No. Sorry, I've already got this queued. Apologies for not sending notice.

Oh, no problem, I thought maybe it would go to tip as I didnt see your
queue.

Thanks you
-Stafford

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1682048

On Wed, Jul 5, 2017 at 9:55 PM, Stafford Horne <shorne@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 05, 2017 at 09:06:11PM -0700, John Stultz wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 5, 2017 at 8:58 PM, Stafford Horne <shorne@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Hi tglx,
>> >
>> > Sorry, to bother you, I thought maybe this you missed this one?  Let me
>> > know if you want a resend.
>>
>> No. Sorry, I've already got this queued. Apologies for not sending notice.
>
> Oh, no problem, I thought maybe it would go to tip as I didnt see your
> queue.

I've not yet pushed it out, but the initial testing looked ok.

thanks
-john

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel

csiph-web