Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

[21314] Improve resilience against clock adjustments (backport #5018) #5189

Open
wants to merge 4 commits into
base: 2.14.x
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

mergify[bot]
Copy link
Contributor

@mergify mergify bot commented Sep 2, 2024

Description

When investigating a system undergoing larger system clock adjustments, I noticed that in some places, std::chrono::system_clock and std::chrono::high_resolution_clock are used for handling timeouts and status check intervals.
However, std::chrono::system_clock is definitely not steady, and std::chrono::high_resolution_clock is not steady quite often (see cppreference).

When undergoing clock adjustments (manually or due to clock server synchronization), timeouts and status checks might no longer be triggered when relying on timestamps based on std::chrono::system_clock.

@Mergifyio backport 2.14.x 2.10.x

Contributor Checklist

  • Commit messages follow the project guidelines.

  • The code follows the style guidelines of this project.

  • Tests that thoroughly check the new feature have been added/Regression tests checking the bug and its fix have been added; the added tests pass locally

  • N/A Any new/modified methods have been properly documented using Doxygen.

  • N/A Any new configuration API has an equivalent XML API (with the corresponding XSD extension)

  • Changes are backport compatible: they do NOT break ABI nor change library core behavior.

  • Changes are API compatible.

  • N/A New feature has been added to the versions.md file (if applicable).

  • N/A New feature has been documented/Current behavior is correctly described in the documentation.

  • Applicable backports have been included in the description.

Reviewer Checklist

  • The PR has a milestone assigned.
  • The title and description correctly express the PR's purpose.
  • Check contributor checklist is correct.
  • N/A If this is a critical bug fix, backports to the critical-only supported branches have been requested.
  • Check CI results: changes do not issue any warning.
  • Check CI results: failing tests are unrelated with the changes.

This is an automatic backport of pull request #5018 done by [Mergify](https://mergify.com).

@mergify mergify bot added the conflicts Backport PR wich git cherry pick failed label Sep 2, 2024
Copy link
Contributor Author

mergify bot commented Sep 2, 2024

Cherry-pick of ccc690c has failed:

On branch mergify/bp/2.14.x/pr-5018
Your branch is up to date with 'origin/2.14.x'.

You are currently cherry-picking commit ccc690c97.
  (fix conflicts and run "git cherry-pick --continue")
  (use "git cherry-pick --skip" to skip this patch)
  (use "git cherry-pick --abort" to cancel the cherry-pick operation)

Changes to be committed:
	modified:   src/cpp/fastdds/domain/DomainParticipantImpl.cpp
	modified:   src/cpp/fastdds/domain/DomainParticipantImpl.hpp
	modified:   src/cpp/rtps/writer/StatefulWriter.cpp
	modified:   src/cpp/utils/SystemInfo.cpp

Unmerged paths:
  (use "git add/rm <file>..." as appropriate to mark resolution)
	both modified:   include/fastdds/rtps/writer/StatefulWriter.h
	both modified:   src/cpp/fastdds/publisher/DataWriterImpl.cpp
	both modified:   src/cpp/fastdds/subscriber/DataReaderImpl.cpp
	deleted by us:   src/cpp/utils/time_t_helpers.hpp

To fix up this pull request, you can check it out locally. See documentation: https://docs.github.com/en/pull-requests/collaborating-with-pull-requests/reviewing-changes-in-pull-requests/checking-out-pull-requests-locally

src/cpp/utils/time_t_helpers.hpp Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
src/cpp/rtps/writer/StatefulWriter.cpp Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
src/cpp/rtps/writer/StatefulWriter.cpp Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
Copy link
Member

@MiguelCompany MiguelCompany left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Please fix uncrustify

@MiguelCompany
Copy link
Member

@Mergifyio rebase

Copy link
Contributor Author

mergify bot commented Nov 15, 2024

rebase

✅ Branch has been successfully rebased

Copy link
Member

@MiguelCompany MiguelCompany left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM with green CI

@MiguelCompany
Copy link
Member

@Mergifyio rebase

ma30002000 and others added 2 commits November 22, 2024 12:38
* Use steady_clock instead of high_resolution_clock for status checks (high_resolution_clock might not be steady depending on STL impl)

Signed-off-by: Matthias Schneider <[email protected]>

* Use steady_clock instead for system_clock for calculating timeouts

Signed-off-by: Matthias Schneider <[email protected]>

* Use correct clock's duration for duration_cast

Signed-off-by: Matthias Schneider <[email protected]>

* Use Time_t::now()

Signed-off-by: Matthias Schneider <[email protected]>

* Fix build.

Signed-off-by: Miguel Company <[email protected]>

* Refs #21314. Refactor on DataWriterImpl.

Signed-off-by: Miguel Company <[email protected]>

* Refs #21314. Refactor on DataReaderImpl.

Signed-off-by: Miguel Company <[email protected]>

* Refs #21314. Refactor on StatefulWriter.

Signed-off-by: Miguel Company <[email protected]>

* Refs #21314. Protect current_time_since_unix_epoch against clock adjustments.

Signed-off-by: Miguel Company <[email protected]>

* Revert "Use steady_clock instead of high_resolution_clock for status checks (high_resolution_clock might not be steady depending on STL impl)"

This reverts commit d69eb91.

---------

Signed-off-by: Matthias Schneider <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Miguel Company <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Miguel Company <[email protected]>
(cherry picked from commit ccc690c)
Copy link
Contributor Author

mergify bot commented Nov 22, 2024

rebase

✅ Branch has been successfully rebased

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
ci-pending PR which CI is running
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants