linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] x86: Export tsc related information in sysfs

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 26 May 2010 12:49:50 -0700
From:	john stultz <johnstul@...ibm.com>
To:	Brian Bloniarz <bmb@...enacr.com>
Cc:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	Dan Magenheimer <dan.magenheimer@...cle.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
	Venkatesh Pallipadi <venki@...gle.com>, chris.mason@...cle.com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: Export tsc related information in sysfs

On Wed, 2010-05-26 at 14:44 -0400, Brian Bloniarz wrote:
> On 05/26/2010 12:25 PM, john stultz wrote:
> > Brian: is this something the NTPd folks actually want? Has anyone
> > checked with them before we hand down the solution from high upon on
> > lkml mountain?
> 
> I haven't checked, it's been a while since I dealt with
> this problem. The NTP maintainers definitely complain about the
> quick TSC calibration code like it's a bug:
> (e.g. http://www.mail-archive.com/questions@lists.ntp.org/msg02079.html).
> Anyway I'll reach out before I spend any time investing in
> a solution that they don't want (and you don't like :).
> 
> > Personally I think NTPd should be a little more savvy about how far it
> > trusts the drift file when it starts up. Since I believe its
> > fast-startup mode can quickly estimate the drift well within 100ppm,
> > which is about the maximum variance I've seen from the calibration code.
> 
> The workaround we went with was to remove the drift file on 
> every reboot. But in our experience, even with iburst, converging takes
> a long time. I don't have hard numbers since it's been a long time since
> I investigated the problem, but we defined failure as >1ms offset syncing
> to a server in our LAN, and a cold NTP boot takes 10-20 hours to get
> there.

Ok. If its been awhile, you may find recent kernels (2.6.31+) are much
faster to converge due to adjustments made to the SHIFT_PLL constant.
This was done explicitly to address issues similar to what you describe
above.

thanks
-john

--
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/