On Tue, 19 Dec 2006 17:54:18 -0800
john stultz <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-12-19 at 17:32 -0800, john stultz wrote:
> > On Wed, 2006-12-13 at 21:40 +0100, Roman Zippel wrote:
> > > On Wed, 13 Dec 2006, john stultz wrote:
> > > > > 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).
> >
> > Untested patch below. Does this vibe better with you are suggesting?
>
> And here would be the follow on patch (again *untested*) for
> CONFIG_NO_HZ slowing the time accumulation down to once per second.
I'm still awaiting a final-looking version of this patch, fyi.
I don't understand whether this is a theoretical might-happen thing,
or if NTP problems have actually been observed in the field?
Either way, I'm sure the final changelog will clear that up ;)
-
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]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
