Re: Linux 2.6.29-rc6

[Jesper Krogh <jesper@krogh.cc>]

Linus Torvalds wrote:
> 
> On Sun, 15 Mar 2009, Jesper Krogh wrote:
>> Linus Torvalds wrote:
>>> Regardless of whether is succeeds or not, it will print out some debug
>>> messages, which will be interesting to see.
>>
>> [    0.000000] Fast TSC delta=34227730, error=6223+6219=12442
>> [    0.000000] Fast TSC calibration using PIT
>> [    0.000000] Detected 2312.045 MHz processor.
> 
> Ok. This claims that the error really is smaller than 500ppm (it's about 
> 360 ppm). Which is about what we're aiming for (in real life, the actual 
> error is about half that - we're just adding up the error terms for 
> maximum theoretical error).
> 
>> Using "ntpq -c peers" .. the offset steadily grows as time goes.
>>
>> Full dmesg: http://krogh.cc/~jesper/dmesg-linux-2.6.29-rc8-linus1.txt
>>
>> jk@quad11:~$ ntpdc -c kerninfo
>> pll offset:           0.085167 s
>> pll frequency:        -18.722 ppm
>> maximum error:        0.137231 s
>> estimated error:      0.008823 s
>> status:               0001  pll
>> pll time constant:    6
>> precision:            1e-06 s
>> frequency tolerance:  500 ppm
> 
> Hmm. But now it all seems to _work_, no? Or do you still get time resets? 

My conclusion was that I would get a time reset after some time since 
the offset just increased as time went by (being reasonably small at the
beginning).

I had it up for around 30 minutes... Should I have tested longer?

I went on to trying Thomas Gleixners patch (which seems to do excactly 
the same .. ), I'll write a reply in to that message in a few minutes.

-- 
Jesper