On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 10:14 PM Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 04/06/20 21:28, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> > time(2) returns good time, while clock_gettime(2) returns bad time.
> > Here's an example:
> >
> > time=1591298725 RT=1591300383 MONO=39582 MONO_RAW=39582 BOOT=39582
> > time=1591298726 RT=1591300383 MONO=39582 MONO_RAW=39582 BOOT=39582
> > time=1591298727 RT=1591300383 MONO=39582 MONO_RAW=39582 BOOT=39582
> > time=1591298728 RT=1591300383 MONO=39582 MONO_RAW=39582 BOOT=39582
> > time=1591298729 RT=1591300383 MONO=39582 MONO_RAW=39582 BOOT=39582
> >
> > As you can see, only time(2) is updated, the others remain the same.
> > date(1) uses clock_gettime(CLOCK_REALTIME) so that shows the bad date.
> >
> > When the correct time reaches the value returned by CLOCK_REALTIME,
> > the value jumps exactly 2199 seconds.
>
> clockid_to_kclock(CLOCK_REALTIME) is &clock_realtime, so clock_gettime
> calls ktime_get_real_ts64, which is:
>
>
> do {
> seq = read_seqcount_begin(&tk_core.seq);
>
> ts->tv_sec = tk->xtime_sec;
> nsecs = timekeeping_get_ns(&tk->tkr_mono);
>
> } while (read_seqcount_retry(&tk_core.seq, seq));
>
> ts->tv_nsec = 0;
> timespec64_add_ns(ts, nsecs);
>
> time(2) instead should actually be gettimeofday(2), which just returns
> tk->xtime_sec. So the problem is the nanosecond part which is off by
> 2199*10^9 nanoseconds, and that is suspiciously close to 2^31...
Yep: looking at the nanosecond values as well, the difference is
exactly 2199023255552 which is 2^41.
Thanks,
Miklos
