Yeah, indeed false positive, app error. Sorry for noise and thanks for feedback. -Max On Jun 3, 2016 10:18 AM, "Konstantin Belousov" <kostikbel_at_gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Jun 03, 2016 at 08:04:29AM -0700, Maxim Sobolev wrote: > > Konstantin, > > > > Thanks for taking your time looking into it and sorry for somewhat messy > > problem report. I've been trying to fix that problem all day yesterday > > thinking it's just application logic that is broken and indeed has been > > able to find some bigger issues that were obscuring this one. But it got > > very frustrating when the bug popped out anew at a seemingly lower level > > now. The issue that triggered this is in some high level python code. > Which > > makes it quite difficult to narrow and isolate. There is still slight > > chance that it's something about threading within the python that screws > > this up somehow, however I don't quite see how that could lead to a > > consistent result that is just off by few hundred microseconds and not in > > some random garbage. > > > > So, I take from you message, that high level > > clock_gettime(CLOCK_MONOTONIC*) is supposed to be monotonic with respect > to > > the wall time even when called in different threads? I always though it > is, > > but was not 100% sure about that and wanted to confirm it before I dive > > deeper into this and spend more time writing a test case to expose this. > Yes, CLOCK_MONOTONIC should be monotonic across all processors. > Until the time travel is made possible, of course. > > > The test case you gave me is interesting, but somewhat low-level. What I > > would do if it comes to it, is to make something that uses pthreads and > > plain clock_gettime(2). Should not be too difficult to reproduce if it's > > real issue. > The test I give you verifies clock_gettime() in several threads going > backward. > > > > > P.S. I've also tried kern.timecounter.fast_gettime=0, made no difference. > > Assuming it does not take a reboot to test it. Neither does > > switching kern.timecounter.hardware, I've tested TSC-low(1000) > > ACPI-fast(900) HPET(950) i8254(0), all are the same. > I am almost sure this is app-level issue. > > To make me confident, run the test I provided. > >Received on Sat Jun 04 2016 - 05:18:36 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:41:05 UTC