From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: vincenzo.frascino@arm.com (Vincenzo Frascino)
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2019 12:07:45 +0100
Subject: [PATCH v6 01/19] kernel: Standardize vdso_datapage
In-Reply-To: <20190610103151.GD11076@merlot.physics.ox.ac.uk>
References: <20190530141531.43462-1-vincenzo.frascino@arm.com>
 <20190530141531.43462-2-vincenzo.frascino@arm.com>
 <20190610092751.GA11076@merlot.physics.ox.ac.uk>
 <58cedde2-0d54-7d2d-f519-77cb71f543fd@arm.com>
 <20190610103151.GD11076@merlot.physics.ox.ac.uk>
Message-ID: <83ab2758-0e8c-35d5-906a-0338bcee3310@arm.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Message-ID: <20190610110745.N0vF7E11qLWwqzCvlBobt80y6Ey6Qf00t-HWUaYNywI@z>

Hi Huw,

On 10/06/2019 11:31, Huw Davies wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 10, 2019@11:17:48AM +0100, Vincenzo Frascino wrote:
>> On 10/06/2019 10:27, Huw Davies wrote:
>>> On Thu, May 30, 2019@03:15:13PM +0100, Vincenzo Frascino wrote:
>>>> --- /dev/null
>>>> +++ b/include/vdso/datapage.h
>>>> @@ -0,0 +1,91 @@
>>>> +/* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 */
>>>> +#ifndef __VDSO_DATAPAGE_H
>>>> +#define __VDSO_DATAPAGE_H
>>>> +
>>>> +#ifdef __KERNEL__
>>>> +
>>>> +#ifndef __ASSEMBLY__
>>>> +
>>>> +#include <linux/bits.h>
>>>> +#include <linux/time.h>
>>>> +#include <linux/types.h>
>>>> +
>>>> +#define VDSO_BASES	(CLOCK_TAI + 1)
>>>> +#define VDSO_HRES	(BIT(CLOCK_REALTIME)		| \
>>>> +			 BIT(CLOCK_MONOTONIC)		| \
>>>> +			 BIT(CLOCK_BOOTTIME)		| \
>>>> +			 BIT(CLOCK_TAI))
>>>> +#define VDSO_COARSE	(BIT(CLOCK_REALTIME_COARSE)	| \
>>>> +			 BIT(CLOCK_MONOTONIC_COARSE))
>>>> +#define VDSO_RAW	(BIT(CLOCK_MONOTONIC_RAW))
>>>> +
>>>> +#define CS_HRES_COARSE	0
>>>> +#define CS_RAW		1
>>>
>>> CS_HRES_COARSE seems like a confusing name choice to me.  What you
>>> really mean is not RAW.
>>>
>>> How about CS_ADJ to indicate that its updated by adjtime?
>>> CS_XTIME might be another option.
>>>
>>
>> I divided the timers in 3 sets (HRES, COARSE, RAW), CS_HRES_COARSE refers to the
>> first two and CS_RAW to the third. I will ad a comment to explain the logic in
>> the next iteration.
> 
> I'm thinking ahead about a possible CLOCK_MONOTONIC_RAW_COARSE (which
> would be useful at least for Wine).  In that case you'd have four clock
> types non-raw and raw, each with either hres or coarse.
> 

Thanks for this, I was not aware of CLOCK_MONOTONIC_RAW_COARSE.
I tried to find, though, some details, but I could not find any. Could you
please provide some reference?

> Huw.
> 

-- 
Regards,
Vincenzo