Critical Linux bug that leads 100% CPU (leap second)

Post by tommi » Mon, Jul 02, 2012, 3:27 PM UTC

ecopoesis wrote: post #6

Hard to call this a Java bug when many other, non-Java things are affected. It's a critical Linux bug that causes futex to timeout, and anything that uses it to behave incorrectly. https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/7/1/11

Post by davidw » Mon, Jul 02, 2012, 3:37 PM UTC

tommi wrote: post #21

ecopoesis wrote: post #6

Hard to call this a Java bug when many other, non-Java things are affected. It's a critical Linux bug that causes futex to timeout, and anything that uses it to behave incorrectly. https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/7/1/11

ecopoesis, you are not the only one saying that it's a linux bug instead of a java bug even though the link title says "Critical Linux bug that leads 100% CPU (leap second)". Did the link title change from a Java title, like the article, to a Linux title to match the actual root cause?

Post by MichaelGG » Mon, Jul 02, 2012, 4:12 PM UTC

wmf wrote: post #20

streptomycin wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you come up with a way of predicting when leap seconds will be needed (hint: it's not a constant regular time interval), let us all know. Until then, there will need to be adjustments.

Leap seconds aren't needed at all. I'd rather let them accumulate until there's a leap hour that can be rolled into DST (although DST may not exist that far in the future).

Post by moe » Mon, Jul 02, 2012, 4:46 PM UTC

MichaelGG wrote: post #25

wmf wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Leap seconds aren't needed at all. I'd rather let them accumulate until there's a leap hour that can be rolled into DST (although DST may not exist that far in the future).

DST doesn't exist in UTC, so that's irrelevant. A one-hour UTC shift would totally, utterly, screw stuff up. But, at the current rate, a one-hour "leap" would happen in thousands of years, so maybe it's not such a bad idea after all. But I think the reason for leap seconds has to do with keeping UTC in sync with other clock systems, and that probably overrides any inconvenience to software.

Post by phaker » Mon, Jul 02, 2012, 5:56 PM UTC

wmf wrote: post #20

streptomycin wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you come up with a way of predicting when leap seconds will be needed (hint: it's not a constant regular time interval), let us all know. Until then, there will need to be adjustments.

Leap seconds aren't needed at all. I'd rather let them accumulate until there's a leap hour that can be rolled into DST (although DST may not exist that far in the future).