<html>
  <head>
    <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
  </head>
  <body>
    <div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 3/29/22 23:16, Li Wang wrote:<br>
    </div>
    <blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAEemH2eAaSyZiXE4G792U72iQvmOwQcVe+RoMMqjF7Bc0uajGQ@mail.gmail.com">
      <meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
      <div dir="ltr">
        <div dir="ltr">
          <div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small">Waiman Long
            <<a href="mailto:longman@redhat.com"
              moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">longman@redhat.com</a>>
            wrote:<br>
          </div>
        </div>
        <div class="gmail_quote">
          <div><br>
          </div>
          <div><br>
          </div>
          <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
            0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
            rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
            The patch looks good in general. However, maybe we should do
            something like:<br>
            <br>
            diff --git a/clock_gettime04.c b/clock_gettime04.c<br>
            index a8d2c5b..1ba218b 100644<br>
            --- a/clock_gettime04.c<br>
            +++ b/clock_gettime04.c<br>
            @@ -92,11 +92,18 @@ static struct time64_variants variants[]
            = {<br>
            <br>
              static void setup(void)<br>
              {<br>
            +       delta = 5;<br>
                     if (tst_is_virt(VIRT_ANY)) {<br>
                             tst_res(TINFO, "Running in a virtual
            machine, multiply <br>
            the delta by 10.");<br>
                             delta *= 10;<br>
                     }<br>
            <br>
            +       clock_getres(CLOCK_REALTIME, &res);<br>
            +       precise_delta = delta + res.tv_nsec / 1000000;<br>
            +<br>
            +       clock_getres(CLOCK_REALTIME_COARSE, &res);<br>
            +       coarse_delta = delta + res.tv_nsec / 1000000;<br>
            +<br>
                     find_clock_gettime_vdso(&ptr_vdso_gettime,
            &ptr_vdso_gettime64);<br>
              }<br>
            <br>
            to avoid a coarse_delta that is too large for vm.<br>
          </blockquote>
          <div><br>
          </div>
          <div>
            <div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small">Thierically
              that's right, we only make the resolution as additional
              value to tolerate.</div>
            <div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small"><br>
            </div>
            <div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small">But I'm
              afraid this is the part we can not guarantee especially
              for VM. </div>
            <span class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small">As f</span>rom
            Eirik<span class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small">'s</span>
            test history<span class="gmail_default"
              style="font-size:small">, the KVM guest ever failed with
              "150ms" delay:</span></div>
          <div><span class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small">  </span>clock_gettime04.c:163:
            TFAIL: CLOCK_BOOTTIME(vDSO with old kernel spec): Difference
            between successive<span class="gmail_default"> </span>readings
            greater than 50 ms (2): 150</div>
          <div><br>
          </div>
        </div>
        <div>
          <div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small">If we
            decide to go with your suggestion, I think we'd better skip
            this test on VM.</div>
        </div>
        <div><br>
        </div>
      </div>
    </blockquote>
    <p>I see. So we really need more tolerance for vm. I am OK with your
      current patch then.</p>
    <p>Acked-by: Waiman Long <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:longman@redhat.com"><longman@redhat.com></a></p>
  </body>
</html>