linux-kernel - Re: Fwd: [GIT PULL] timer changes for v3.10

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]

Message-ID: <20130507171855.GB29686@gmail.com>
Date:	Tue, 7 May 2013 19:18:55 +0200
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To:	John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>
Cc:	Feng Tang <feng.tang@...el.com>, Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: Fwd: [GIT PULL] timer changes for v3.10


* John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org> wrote:

> On 05/06/2013 11:53 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >* Feng Tang <feng.tang@...el.com> wrote:
> >
> >>>is even worse than that. Machine can stay is s2ram for weeks (for a
> >>>lot more if it is desktop and you do s2ram for powersaving). Also
> >>>temperature of CPU varies a lot between active and s2ram states. Is
> >>>TSC good enough?
> >>Yes, I think it is relatively precise. Per our test, system time backed
> >>by the S3 non stop TSC only has 1 second drift after 4 days running
> >>(with mixed running and S3 states). And before using this feature, we've
> >>seen many time drift problems due to the RTC HW or system FW with our
> >>platforms.
> >Nice result ...
> >
> >Is that with NTP running?
> >
> > Without NTP, the TSC fast-calibration on bootup is not (expected to 
> > be) nearly as precise as the 1:345600 precision you've measured.
> 
> We also do refined calibration now on the TSC asynchronously over a 
> period of seconds at boot up that gives us much better accuracy then the 
> fast calibration. This helps provide much more consistent boot-to-boot 
> TSC frequencies.

Indeed, I just checked from the logs of a system booting newer kernels how 
well it works in practice, and it's about 10 ppm or better, which is much 
better than the ~1000 ppm calibration inaccuracy I remembered.

Thanks,

	Ingo
--
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/