Re: [PATCH_TAKE_2] now < last_tick problem

From: Ian Wienand <>
Date: 2003-10-14 09:06:21
On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 11:17:06AM -0700, David Mosberger wrote:
> You do realize that xtime_lock is NOT a lock at all?  Seqlock is a
> scheme for lock-free synchronization.

That was my point, sorry.

do_gettimeofday() does 

 while (1) {
                seq = read_seqbegin(&xtime_lock);
                        old = last_nsec_offset;
                        offset = time_interpolator_get_offset();
                        sec = xtime.tv_sec;
                        nsec = xtime.tv_nsec;
                if (unlikely(read_seqretry(&xtime_lock, seq)))
  ... and so on ...

Previously, if that read_seqbegin was some kind of irq save lock, then
time_interpolator_get_offset() (which is itc_get_offset()) should
never have been interrupted (especially by the timer interrupt), and
the warning message (now < last_tick) meant something was wrong.
Using synchronisation, it's probable that itc_get_offset() will be
interrupted every now and then, but do_gettimeofday() will keep
retrying it till read_seqretry informs it that read the right values.

So the warning message in itc_get_offset isn't really needed?

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ia64" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Received on Mon Oct 13 19:06:44 2003

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 2005-08-02 09:20:19 EST