Re: [RFC] HZ free ntp

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]



On Wed, 13 Dec 2006, john stultz wrote:

> > The largest possible interval is freq cycles (or 1 second without
> > adjustments). That is the base interval and without redesigning NTP we
> > can't change that. This base interval can be subdivided into smaller
> > intervals for incremental updates.
> Indeed, larger then 1 second intervals would require the second_overflow
> code to be reworked too.

There isn't much to rework without a complete redesign.

> > You cannot choose arbitrary intervals otherwise you get other problems,
> > e.g. with your patch time_offset handling is broken.
> I'm not seeing this yet. Any more details? 

time_offset is scaled to HZ in do_adjtimex, which needs to be changed as 

> > You don't have to introduce anything new, it's tick_length that changes
> > and HZ that becomes a variable in this function.
> So, forgive me for rehashing this, but it seems we're cross talking
> again. The context here is the dynticks code. Where HZ doesn't change,
> but we get interrupts at much reduced rates.

I know and all you have to change in the ntp and some related code is to 
replace HZ there with a variable, thus make it changable, so you can 
increase the update interval (i.e. it becomes 1s/hz instead of 1s/HZ).

> However, in doing so we have to
> work w/ the ntp.c code which (as Ingo earlier mentioned) has a number of
> HZ based assumptions.

Repeating Ingo's nonsense doesn't make it any more true. :-(

bye, Roman
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Photo]     [Stuff]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Linux for the blind]     [Linux Resources]
  Powered by Linux