On Thu, 3 Mar 2005, Troy Benjegerdes wrote:
I don't see how you'd ever get a clock that goes backwards with this method.. it might not increase under high load, but would that be a problem?
We have had a multiprocessor Linux system where the clock went backwards without the help of ntp during normal operation.
Can we set the "time" thread to real-time priority? Or can we set up a small chunk (say 4k) of System-V shared memory (or mmap-ed file) that can be updated at some configurable rate (1hz to 100hz maybe) by a process with real-time priority? All the AFS processes (not just the fileserver) would then map that memory read-only.
sysv shared memory will have portability issues. mmap() is probably better. but lwp dealt by having an approxtime and a time call, and if you needed a real time, you asked, and if you didn't you used the cached time.
e.g. we already had a hack.
_______________________________________________ OpenAFS-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-devel
