Missing clock_gettime(CLOCK_MONOTONIC) (e.g. for iceweasel)
It could be a mere matter of extending the
mapped-time interface:
add it to
mapped_time_value_t in gnumach, handle it in gnumach/kern/mach_clock.c, and
make clock_gettime use it.
BTW, also make gettimeofday() use it, since it's way more efficient and some
applications assume that it is.
What about adding a nanosecond-precision clock, too? --tschwinge
IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2011-08-26
< pinotree> youpi: thing is: apparently i found a simple way to have a
monotonic clock as mmap-able device inside gnumach
< pinotree> currently, in kern/mach_clock.c there's a variable 'time',
which gets increased on clock interrupt, and optionally modified by
host_set_time
< pinotree> ()
< pinotree> if i add a new variable next to it, only increasing it on
interrupt but not modifying it at all otherwise, would that give me a
monotonic clock?
< pinotree> at least on sme basic tests i did, it seems it could work that
way
< youpi> yes, it should work
< braunr> sure
< youpi> and that's the way I was considering implementing it
IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2011-09-06
<pinotree> yeah, i had a draft of improved idea for also handling
nanoseconds
<tschwinge> pinotree: Ah, nice, I thought about nanoseconds as well.
<tschwinge> pinotree, youpi: This memory page is all-zero by default,
right?
<tschwinge> Can't we then say that its last int is a version code, and if
it is 0 (as it is now), we only have the normal mapped time field, if it
is 1, we also have the monotonic cliock and ns precision on address 8 and
16 (or whatever)?
<tschwinge> In case that isn't your plan anyway.
<youpi> it's all-zero, yes
<tschwinge> Or, we say if a field is != 0 it is valid.
<youpi> making the last int a version code limits the size to one page
<youpi> I was thinking a field != 0 being valid is simpler
<youpi> but it's probably a problem too
<youpi> in that glibc usually caches whether interfaces are supported
<tschwinge> Wrap-around?
<youpi> for some clocks, it may be valid that the value is 0
<youpi> wrap-around is another issue too
<tschwinge> Well, then we can do the version-field thing, but put it right
after the current time field (address 8, I think)?
<youpi> yes
<youpi> it's a bit ugly, but it's hidden behind the structure
<tschwinge> It's not too bad, I think.
<youpi> yes
<tschwinge> And it will forever be a witness of the evolving of this
map_time interface. :-)
IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2013-02-11
In context of select.
<pinotree> braunr: would you send for review (and inclusion) your
time_data_t addition?
<pinotree> this way we could add nanosecs-based utime rpc (and then their
implementation in libc)
<braunr> pinotree: it's part of the hurd branch
<braunr> do you want it sent separately ?
<pinotree> yeah
<braunr> ok
<braunr> let me get it right first :)
<pinotree> sure :)
IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2013-02-12
<braunr> pinotree:
http://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/hurd/hurd.git/commit/?h=rbraun/select_timeout_pthread_v2&id=6ec50e62d9792c803d00cbff1cab2c0b3675690a
<pinotree> uh nice
<pinotree> will need two small inline functions to convert time_data_t <->
timespec, but that's it
<braunr> hm right
<braunr> i could have thought about it
<braunr> but i'll leave it for another patch :p
<pinotree> oh sure, no hurry
IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2013-02-19
<youpi> braunr: about time_data_t, I get it's needed that it be an array
<youpi> so it can be passed by reference, not by value?
<braunr> by address, yes
<braunr> that's the difference between array and struct
IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2013-02-25
<youpi> braunr: why did you want to see time_data passed as pointer, not as
struct?
<braunr> to microoptimize
<braunr> the struct is 2 64-bit integers
<youpi> well, we already pass structs along in a few cases,
e.g. io_statbuf_t, rusage_t, etc.
<youpi> be it written t[0].sec or t->sec, it seems odd
<youpi> copying 2 64bit integers is not much compared to the potential for
bugs here
<braunr> bugs ?
<youpi> yes, as in trying to access t[1], passing a wrong pointer, etc.
<youpi> or the reader frowning on "why is this case different than the
others?"
<braunr> well, i'm already usually frowning when i see what mig does ..
<youpi> right
<youpi> on the plus side, it's only the client side, i.e. mostly glibc,
which sees the t[0]
<braunr> and the practice established by my patch is to convert to struct
timespec as soon as possible
<braunr> the direct use of this type is therefore limited
<youpi> could we define time_data_t as a struct time_data * instead of
struct time_data[1] ?
<youpi> (in the.h)
<youpi> that would make more sense to define a struct time_data, and pass a
pointer to it
<braunr> i'm not sure
<braunr> the mach server writing guide was very clear about array implying
a C array too
<braunr> and i remember having compilation problems before doing that
<braunr> but i don't remember their nature exactly
<youpi> I'm not sure to understand what you said about converting to struct
timespec
<youpi> what makes it not possible now?
<youpi> and what is the relation with being an array or a pointer?
<braunr> concerning struct timespec, what i mean is that the functions
called by the mig stub code directly convert time_data_t to a struct
timespec (which is the real type used throughout the hurd code)
<braunr> about the rest, i'm not sure, i'd have to try again
<braunr> mig just assumes it's an array
<youpi> and why not just using struct timespec?
<youpi> (for the mig type too)
<braunr> my brain can't correctly compute variable sized types in mig
definition files
<braunr> i wanted something that would remain correct for the 64-bit port
<youpi> ah, you mean because tv_nsec is a long, which will not be the same
type?
<braunr> and tv_sec being a time_t (thus a long too)
<youpi> but we have the same issue e.g. for the rusage structure, don't we?
<braunr> yes
<youpi> so we'll have to fix things for that too anyway
<braunr> sure
<youpi> making a special case will not necessarily help
<braunr> but it doesn't mean new interfaces have to be buggy too
<youpi> well, using the proper type in the server itself is nicer
<youpi> instead of having to convert
<braunr> yes
<braunr> i'm not exactly sure where to declare struct timespec then
<braunr> should it be declared in hurd_types.h, and simply reused by the
libc headers ?
<youpi> ? AIUI, it's the converse, hurd_types.h uses the struct timespec
from libc headers, and defines timespec_t
<braunr> ok
<youpi> timespec_t being the internal type whose definition gets done right
for mig to do the right thing
<braunr> yes
<braunr> i see
<braunr> so, you'd like a struct of integer_t instead of an array of
signed64
<youpi> for our current 32bit userland yes
<braunr> do you want to make the changes yourself or should i add a new
branch ?
<youpi> and we'll make that a 64bit struct when we have a64bit userland
IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2013-04-06
<tschwinge> pinotree: You had once been working on adding nsec-procision
timestamps to GNU Mach's maptime interface (or what the name is). Is
that blocked on something or just waiting to be continued?
<pinotree> blocked on me needing to learn more the proper way to do
"atomic" update of the struct with time :)