[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.00.0902261426310.3111@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2009 14:31:48 -0800 (PST)
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
cc: john stultz <johnstul@...ibm.com>, Jesper Krogh <jesper@...gh.cc>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>
Subject: Re: Linux 2.6.29-rc6
On Thu, 26 Feb 2009, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, 26 Feb 2009, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> >
> > Is the delta anything NTP might get upset about:
> >
> > 2.6.26: time.c: Detected 2311.847 MHz processor.
> > 2.6.29: Detected 2310.029 MHz processor.
> >
> > If yes, then we need to fix NTP not the calibration code :)
>
> Well, that _is_ about 500ppm difference
Doing the math rather than just eyeballing it, I think it's closer to
800ppm than 500ppm. But maybe I did that wrong too.
Which is definitely pretty far out. The theory is that if we can catch the
edge of the PIT timer to 1us, and even if we get it maximally wrong at
beginning/end (ie the difference is off by 2us), a 2us error over 15ms
should be on the order of just a 133ppm error.
So 800ppm looks too big. We're clearly not getting to within 1us of the
PIT timer event edge. But it would be interesting to hear whether making
teh 15ms be 30ms will get us to a better place, and make ntp happier.
And maybe my math is just wrong, and it's not the "within 1us" assumption
that was wrong.
Linus
--
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