This is the mail archive of the libc-hacker@sources.redhat.com mailing list for the glibc project.

Note that libc-hacker is a closed list. You may look at the archives of this list, but subscription and posting are not open.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: tst-nanosleep, tst-clock_nanosleep Failures

From: Andreas Jaeger <aj at suse dot de>
To: Steve Munroe <sjmunroe at us dot ibm dot com>
Cc: libc-hacker at sources dot redhat dot com, libc-alpha at sources dot redhat dot com
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 21:30:15 +0200
Subject: Re: tst-nanosleep, tst-clock_nanosleep Failures
References: <OF8D96D34E.CEEBD0E0-ON86256D44.00687296-86256D44.0069C7EB@us.ibm.com>

Steve Munroe <sjmunroe@us.ibm.com> writes:

> Is anyone else seeing make check failures in tst-nanosleep and 
> tst-clock_nanosleep?
>
> I see these fail at various times (7.5%+ failure rate) on PPC64 (both 2.4 
> and 2.5) kernels running either PPC32 or PPC64 applications. These are all 
> SMP machines. In each case the measured time averages 0.5 jiffies less 
> than 1 second! 
>
> The nanosleep code is in the kernel is arch independent so I would expect 
> this test to fail on the SMP platforms?

Perhaps your clock is going wrong?  The time keeping code is
architecture dependend...

Andreas
-- 
 Andreas Jaeger
  SuSE Labs aj@suse.de
   private aj@arthur.inka.de
    http://www.suse.de/~aj

References:
- tst-nanosleep, tst-clock_nanosleep Failures
  - From: Steve Munroe

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]