From: john stultz <johnstul@us.ibm.com>
To: Roman Zippel <zippel@linux-m68k.org>
Cc: lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] exponential update_wall_time
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2006 16:13:12 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1159398793.7297.9.camel@localhost> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0609280031550.6761@scrub.home>
On Thu, 2006-09-28 at 01:04 +0200, Roman Zippel wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Sep 2006, john stultz wrote:
>
> > Accumulate time in update_wall_time exponentially.
> > This avoids long running loops seen with the dynticks patch
> > as well as the problematic hang" seen on systems with broken
> > clocksources.
>
> This is the wrong approach, second_overflow() should be called every HZ
> increment steps and your patch breaks this.
First, forgive me, since I've got a bit of a head cold, so I'm even
slower then usual. I just don't see how this patch changes the behavior.
Every second we will call second_overflow. But in the case where we
skipped 100 ticks, we don't loop 100 times. Could you explain this a bit
more?
> There are other approaches oo accommodate dyntick.
> 1. You could make HZ in ntp_update_frequency() dynamic and thus reduce the
> frequency with which update_wall_time() needs to be called (Note that
> other clock variables like cycle_interval have to be adjusted as well).
I'm not sure how this is functionally different from what this patch
does.
> 2. If dynticks stops the timer interrupt for a long time, it could
> precalculate a few things, e.g. it could complete the second and then
> advance the time in full seconds.
Not following this one at all.
Again, sorry for being so thick.
-john
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2006-09-27 23:13 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2006-09-27 19:35 [RFC] exponential update_wall_time john stultz
2006-09-27 20:08 ` Ingo Molnar
2006-09-27 20:24 ` Thomas Gleixner
2006-09-27 22:05 ` Andrew Morton
2006-09-27 23:20 ` john stultz
2006-09-27 23:04 ` Roman Zippel
2006-09-27 23:13 ` john stultz [this message]
2006-09-27 23:40 ` Roman Zippel
2006-09-28 0:28 ` john stultz
2006-09-28 21:01 ` Roman Zippel
2006-09-28 21:11 ` Ingo Molnar
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1159398793.7297.9.camel@localhost \
--to=johnstul@us.ibm.com \
--cc=akpm@osdl.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=zippel@linux-m68k.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.