[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.00.0906161322330.2800@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 13:29:49 +0200 (CEST)
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
cc: john stultz <johnstul@...ibm.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Miroslav Lichvar <mlichvar@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [GIT pull] ntp updates for 2.6.31
On Tue, 16 Jun 2009, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> Each OS should converge back to the correct time _as fast as
> physically possible_. If this is a problem and if someone wants
> crappy time and longer periods of convergence for some odd reason
> then that header file change can be edited by hand even. It's not
> like it's that hard to change, if there's genuine interest.
>
> So i'm against any revert on this basis. If another basis comes up
> we can reconsider of course. What do you think?
I completely agree.
Consistent convergence across different OSs is a wet dream.
We see even different behaviour across kernel versions :) Also I
recently looked at an embedded system running the same kernel version
as a PC in the same network. Same version of user space tools. Main
difference aside the arch was HZ (100 vs. 1000). The PC convergence
time was about 40% higher than the embedded systems.
Thanks,
tglx
--
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