Message-ID: <510615F8.7010203@ti.com>
Date:	Mon, 28 Jan 2013 11:38:56 +0530
From:	Santosh Shilimkar <santosh.shilimkar@...com>
To:	Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>
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 Tuesday 22 January 2013 08:35 PM, Santosh Shilimkar wrote:
> On Tuesday 22 January 2013 08:21 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
>> 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.)
>>
> Thanks for expanding it. It is really helpful.
>
>> 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.)
>>
> Fully agree about experimentation to re-asses the drift.
>  From what I recollect from past, few OMAP customers did
> report the time drift issue and that is how the switch
> from 100 --> 128 happened.
>
> Anyway I have added the suggested task to my long todo list.
>
So I tried to see if any time drift with HZ = 100 on OMAP. I ran the
setup for 62 hours and 27 mins with time synced up once with NTP server.
I measure about ~174 millisecond drift which is almost noise considering
the observed duration was ~224820000 milliseconds.

Am re-running the setup with HZ = 128 for similar time frame to see if
the minimal drift observed goes away.

Once through that, I will send a patch to update the OMAP to use
HZ = 100 and possibly get rid of the custom OMAP HZ config.

Regards,
Santosh


--
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