Message-ID: <20130122145113.GK23505@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>
Date:	Tue, 22 Jan 2013 14:51:13 +0000
From:	Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>
To:	Santosh Shilimkar <santosh.shilimkar@...com>
Cc:	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Matt Sealey <matt@...esi-usa.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Ben Dooks <ben@...tec.co.uk>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>,
	Linux ARM Kernel ML <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: One of these things (CONFIG_HZ) is not like the others..

On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 03:44:03PM +0530, Santosh Shilimkar wrote:
> Sorry for not being clear enough. On OMAP, 32KHz is the only clock which
> is always running(even during low power states) and hence the clock
> source and clock event have been clocked using 32KHz clock. As mentioned
> by RMK, with 32768 Hz clock and HZ = 100, there will be always an
> error of 0.1 %. This accuracy also impacts the timer tick interval.
> This was the reason, OMAP has been using the HZ = 128.

Ok.  Let's look at this.  As far as time-of-day is concerned, this
shouldn't really matter with the clocksource/clockevent based system
that we now have (where *important point* platforms have been converted
over.)

Any platform providing a clocksource will override the jiffy-based
clocksource.  The measurement of time-of-day passing is now based on
the difference in values read from the clocksource, not from the actual
tick rate.

Anything _not_ providing a clock source will be reliant on jiffies
incrementing, which in turn _requires_ one timer interrupt per jiffies
at a known rate (which is HZ).

Now, that's the time of day, what about jiffies?  Well, jiffies is
incremented based on a certain number of nsec having passed since the
last jiffy update.  That means the code copes with dropped ticks and
the like.

However, if your actual interrupt rate is close to the desired HZ, then
it can lead to some interesting effects (and noise):

- if the interrupt rate is slightly faster than HZ, then you can end up
  with updates being delayed by 2x interrupt rate.
- if the interrupt rate is slightly slower than HZ, you can occasionally
  end up with jiffies incrementing by two.
- if your interrupt rate is dead on HZ, then other system noise can come
  into effect and you may get maybe zero, one or two jiffy increments per
  interrupt.

(You have to think about time passing in NS, where jiffy updates should
be vs where the timer interrupts happen.)  See tick_do_update_jiffies64()
for the details.

The timer infrastructure is jiffy based - which includes scheduling where
the scheduler does not use hrtimers.  That means a slight discrepency
between HZ and the actual interrupt rate can cause around 1/HZ jitter.
That's a matter of fact due to how the code works.

So, actually, I think the accuracy of HZ has much overall effect _provided_
a platform provides a clocksource to the accuracy of jiffy based timers
nor timekeeping.  For those which don't, the accuracy of the timer
interrupt to HZ is very important.

(This is just based on reading some code and not on practical
experiments - I'd suggest some research of this is done, trying HZ=100
on OMAP's 32kHz timers, checking whether there's any drift, checking
how accurately a single task can be woken from various select/poll/epoll
delays, and checking whether NTP works.)

And I think further discussion is pointless until such research has been
done (or someone who _really_ knows the time keeping/timer/sched code
inside out comments.)
--
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