lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2023]   [Sep]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [RFC PATCH v2 2/6] timekeeping: Fix cross-timestamp interpolation corner case decision
Date
On Fri, Aug 18 2023 at 03:20, Peter Hilber wrote:
> --- a/kernel/time/timekeeping.c
> +++ b/kernel/time/timekeeping.c
> @@ -1247,7 +1247,8 @@ int get_device_system_crosststamp(int (*get_time_fn)
> */
> now = tk_clock_read(&tk->tkr_mono);
> interval_start = tk->tkr_mono.cycle_last;
> - if (!cycle_between(interval_start, cycles, now)) {
> + if (!cycle_between(interval_start, cycles, now) &&
> + cycles != interval_start) {
> clock_was_set_seq = tk->clock_was_set_seq;
> cs_was_changed_seq = tk->cs_was_changed_seq;
> cycles = interval_start;

So the explanation in the changelog makes some sense, but this code
without any further explanation just makes my brain explode.

This whole thing screams for a change to cycle_between() so it becomes:

timestamp_in_interval(start, end, ts)

and make start inclusive and not exclusive, no?

That's actually correct for both usage sites because for interpolation
the logic is the same. history_begin->cycles is a valid timestamp, no?

Thanks,

tglx


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2023-09-15 18:12    [W:0.111 / U:0.868 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site