[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0609280031550.6761@scrub.home>
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2006 01:04:09 +0200 (CEST)
From: Roman Zippel <zippel@...ux-m68k.org>
To: john stultz <johnstul@...ibm.com>
cc: lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] exponential update_wall_time
Hi,
On Wed, 27 Sep 2006, john stultz wrote:
> Accumulate time in update_wall_time exponentially.
> This avoids long running loops seen with the dynticks patch
> as well as the problematic hang" seen on systems with broken
> clocksources.
This is the wrong approach, second_overflow() should be called every HZ
increment steps and your patch breaks this.
There are other approaches oo accommodate dyntick.
1. You could make HZ in ntp_update_frequency() dynamic and thus reduce the
frequency with which update_wall_time() needs to be called (Note that
other clock variables like cycle_interval have to be adjusted as well).
2. If dynticks stops the timer interrupt for a long time, it could
precalculate a few things, e.g. it could complete the second and then
advance the time in full seconds.
bye, Roman
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists