[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CALAqxLVjzOAf_UmY_5F4cYevqFD2Qa4+-uPB-2HRYNk93qvsXw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 17 May 2017 09:30:31 -0700
From: John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>
To: Miroslav Lichvar <mlichvar@...hat.com>
Cc: lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Prarit Bhargava <prarit@...hat.com>,
Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 0/3] Improve stability of system clock
On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 9:13 AM, Miroslav Lichvar <mlichvar@...hat.com> wrote:
> This is an attempt to improve stability and accuracy of the system clock
> with very accurate time sources like the new PTP KVM clock or NTP/PTP
> using hardware timestamping. It affects mainly kernels running with
> NOHZ. It requires updating of the old ia64 and powerpc vsyscalls.
>
> The main problem is that the error accumulated in the ntp_error register
> takes too long to correct and this cannot be easily fixed. There are
> four sources of the error:
> - rounding of time for old vsyscalls
> - alignment of frequency adjustments to ticks
> - iterative correction of the multiplier
> - limited resolution of the multipler
>
> Instead of trying to correct the error faster, the patches remove the
> first three sources. With the only remaining source the correction logic
> can be simplified and the frequency of the clock is much more stable and
> accurate.
>
> Simulations of a frequency step in linux-tktest (values are in ppm and
> nanoseconds):
So thanks for sending these out. I still need to look them over in
depth, but can I make another ask here? :)
Could you submit your linux-tktest infrastructure to the kselftests dir?
It would be really nice for folks to be able to reproduce your results
be able to do similar testing for regressions.
thanks
-john
Powered by blists - more mailing lists