Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 13:06:37 -0800 From: Julian Elischer <julian@freebsd.org> To: Andriy Gapon <avg@freebsd.org> Cc: Alexander Kabaev <kan@freebsd.org>, threads@freebsd.org, FreeBSD Stable <freebsd-stable@freebsd.org>, Jens Axboe <jaxboe@fusionio.com> Subject: Re: pthread_cond_timedwait() broken in 9-stable? (from JAN 10) Message-ID: <4F3D6FDD.9050808@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <4F3D3E2D.9090100@FreeBSD.org> References: <4F3C2671.3090808__7697.00510795719$1329343207$gmane$org@freebsd.org> <4F3D3E2D.9090100@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 2/16/12 9:34 AM, Andriy Gapon wrote:
> on 15/02/2012 23:41 Julian Elischer said the following:
>> The program fio (an IO test in ports) uses pthreads
>>
>> the following code (from fio-2.0.3, but its in earlier code too)
>> has suddenly started misbehaving.
>>
>> clock_gettime(CLOCK_REALTIME,&t);
>> t.tv_sec += seconds + 10;
>>
>> pthread_mutex_lock(&mutex->lock);
>>
>> while (!mutex->value&& !ret) {
>> mutex->waiters++;
>> ret = pthread_cond_timedwait(&mutex->cond,&mutex->lock,&t);
>> mutex->waiters--;
>> }
>>
>> if (!ret) {
>> mutex->value--;
>> pthread_mutex_unlock(&mutex->lock);
>> }
>>
>>
>> It turns out that 'ret' sometimes comes back instantly (on my machine) with a
>> value of 60 (ETIMEDOUT)
>> despite the fact that we set the timeout 10 seconds into the future.
>>
>> Has anyone else seen anything like this?
>> (and yes the condition variable attribute have been set to use the REALTIME clock).
> But why?
>
> Just a hypothesis that maybe there is some issue with time keeping on that system.
> How would that code work out for you with MONOTONIC?
Jens Axboe, (CC'd) tried both CLOCK_REALTIME and CLOCK_MONOTONIC, and
they both had the same problem..
i.e. random early returns with ETIMEDOUT.
I think we will try move out machine forward to a newer -stable to see
if it resolves.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4F3D6FDD.9050808>