Re: [Bugme-new] [Bug 8479] New: gettimeofday returning 1000000 in tv_usec on core2duo

[Eric Dumazet <dada1@cosmosbay.com>]

Bill Davidsen a écrit :
> Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Tue, 15 May 2007 08:06:52 +0200 Eric Dumazet <dada1@cosmosbay.com> 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Andrew Morton a écrit :
> > > > On Mon, 14 May 2007 21:17:47 -0700 bugme-daemon@bugzilla.kernel.org 
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8479
> > > > >
> > > > >            Summary: gettimeofday returning 1000000 in tv_usec on 
> > > > > core2duo
> > > > >     Kernel Version: 2.6.21
> > > > >             Status: NEW
> > > > >           Severity: normal
> > > > >              Owner: ak@suse.de
> > > > >          Submitter: dang@gentoo.org
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Most recent kernel where this bug did *NOT* occur: 2.6.20
> > > > > Distribution: Gentoo
> > > > > Hardware Environment: core2duo T7200 (all reporters had this same CPU)
> > > > > Software Environment: Linux 2.6.21, glibc 2.5
> > > > > Problem Description:
> > > > >
> > > > > gettimeofday returns 1 - 1000000 in tv_usec, not 0 - 999999 This 
> > > > > does not happen on any of my AMD-based 32 or 64 bit boxes, only on my
> > > > > core2duo; I have 2 other reports of this problem, all on T7200's
> > > > >
> > > > > Steps to reproduce:
> > > > >
> > > > > call gettimeofday a lot.  Eventually, you'll get 1000000 returned 
> > > > > in tv_usec. My
> > > > > average is ~1 in 1000000 calls.  I've attached my test program, 
> > > > > with output from
> > > > > various boxes.  One of the other reporters tried the test program 
> > > > > too, and got
> > > > > similar output.  .config will be attached too.
> > > > err, whoops.
> > > I remember I already hit this and corrected it
> > >
> > > http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git;a=blobdiff;f=arch/x86_64/kernel/vsyscall.c;h=dc32cef961950915fbaa185e36ab802d5f7cea3b;hp=ba330f87067996a17495f7d03466d646c718b52c;hb=c8118c6c07f2edfd697aaa0b93e08c3b65a5a675;hpb=272a3713bb9e302e0455c894c41180a482d2c8a3 
> >
> > Oh, OK.
> >
> > > Maybe a stable push is necessary ?
> >
> > yup.  Please always think of -stable when preparing fixes.  I'm sure many
> > useful fixes are slipping past simply because those who _are_ looking out
> > for backportable fixes are missing things.
> That makes me feel better, I have been occasionally suggesting fixes 
> posted here as candidates for stable, I was afraid I was being a PITA. I 
> forgot about the "stable" address and have been bugging greg, I'll stop 
> that.

Well, it seems Andrew concern about 'stable' was not right for this particular 
patch, since I  posted it well before 2.6.21-final, and 2.6.20 was not concerned.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/