[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0801290439480.17507@scrub.home>
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2008 05:02:21 +0100 (CET)
From: Roman Zippel <zippel@...ux-m68k.org>
To: john stultz <johnstul@...ibm.com>
cc: lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] correct inconsistent ntp interval/tick_length usage
Hi,
On Mon, 28 Jan 2008, john stultz wrote:
> Regardless, current_tick_length() really is the base interval we're
> using in the error accumulation loop, so it seems the cleanest interface
> to use (just to avoid redundancy at least) when establishing the
> clocksource's interval length. Or do you not agree?
I see, what you need to use in timex.h for !CONFIG_NO_HZ is:
#define NTP_INTERVAL_LENGTH ((s64)LATCH * NSEC_PER_SEC) / (s64)CLOCK_TICK_RATE)
this calculates the base length of a clock tick in nsec.
current_tick_length() would only work during boot. If you switch clocks
later, it would include random adjustments specific to the old clock.
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