On Mon, 15 Aug 2005, john stultz wrote:
> Sorry. It was subtle, but after thinking more about your arguments, I've
> stepped back from my earlier goals of replacing the timekeeping code for
> all arches and instead I've decided to just focus on allowing
> architectures that would duplicate code using a continuous timesource
> use a common code base.
Thats great!
> Think of it more as a replacement for the time_interpolator code (which
> thanks to Christoph Lameter, it is quite influenced by).
I have no objection to replacing the time_interpolator code if the
timesources provide a superset of functionality. Rename time_interpolator
to timesource (including all currently existing interpolator defintions
which will become time sources) and modify/add fields to be able to
satisfy your requirements. The interpolator compensations may become not
necessary if the upper layers can deal with discrepancies between timer
interrupts and actual intervals occurring between these interrupts and if
the upper layer can adjust the time source in use.
You mentioned that the NTP code has some issues with time interpolation
at the KS. This is due to the NTP layer not being aware of actual time
differences between timer interrupts that the interpolator knows about. If
the NTP layer would be aware of the actual intervals measured by the
timesource (or interpolator) then presumably time could be adjusted in a
more accurate way.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
| |
 |