From: santosh.shilimkar@ti.com (Santosh Shilimkar)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: One of these things (CONFIG_HZ) is not like the others..
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2013 12:13:46 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <51076FA2.9070002@ti.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <5107114C.4070307@linaro.org>
Jon,
On Tuesday 29 January 2013 05:31 AM, John Stultz wrote:
> On 01/27/2013 10:08 PM, Santosh Shilimkar wrote:
>> 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:
[..]
>>> 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.
>
> So 174ms drift doesn't sound great, as < 2ms (often much less - though
> that depends on how close the server is) can be expected with NTP.
> Although its not clear how you were measuring: Did you see a max 174ms
> offset while trying to sync with NTP? Was that offset shortly after
> starting NTP or after NTP converged down?
>
To avoid the server latency, we didn't do continuous sync. The time was
synced in the beginning and after 62.5 hours (#ntpd -qg) and the drift
of about 174 ms was observed. As you said this could be because of
server sync time along with probably some addition from system calls
from #ntpd. As mentioned, the other run with HZ = 128 which started
15 hours 20 mins is already showing about 24 mS drift now. I will
let it run for couple of more days just to have similar duration run.
Regards,
santosh
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Santosh Shilimkar <santosh.shilimkar@ti.com>
To: John Stultz <john.stultz@linaro.org>
Cc: Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@arm.linux.org.uk>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>, Tony Lindgren <tony@atomide.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Matt Sealey <matt@genesi-usa.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, Ben Dooks <ben@simtec.co.uk>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
Linux ARM Kernel ML <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: One of these things (CONFIG_HZ) is not like the others..
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2013 12:13:46 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <51076FA2.9070002@ti.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <5107114C.4070307@linaro.org>
Jon,
On Tuesday 29 January 2013 05:31 AM, John Stultz wrote:
> On 01/27/2013 10:08 PM, Santosh Shilimkar wrote:
>> 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:
[..]
>>> 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.
>
> So 174ms drift doesn't sound great, as < 2ms (often much less - though
> that depends on how close the server is) can be expected with NTP.
> Although its not clear how you were measuring: Did you see a max 174ms
> offset while trying to sync with NTP? Was that offset shortly after
> starting NTP or after NTP converged down?
>
To avoid the server latency, we didn't do continuous sync. The time was
synced in the beginning and after 62.5 hours (#ntpd -qg) and the drift
of about 174 ms was observed. As you said this could be because of
server sync time along with probably some addition from system calls
from #ntpd. As mentioned, the other run with HZ = 128 which started
15 hours 20 mins is already showing about 24 mS drift now. I will
let it run for couple of more days just to have similar duration run.
Regards,
santosh
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-01-29 6:43 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 96+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-01-21 20:01 One of these things (CONFIG_HZ) is not like the others Matt Sealey
2013-01-21 20:01 ` Matt Sealey
2013-01-21 20:41 ` Arnd Bergmann
2013-01-21 20:41 ` Arnd Bergmann
2013-01-21 21:00 ` John Stultz
2013-01-21 21:00 ` John Stultz
2013-01-21 21:12 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2013-01-21 21:12 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2013-01-21 22:18 ` John Stultz
2013-01-21 22:18 ` John Stultz
2013-01-21 22:44 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2013-01-21 22:44 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2013-01-22 8:27 ` Arnd Bergmann
2013-01-22 8:27 ` Arnd Bergmann
2013-01-21 22:20 ` Matt Sealey
2013-01-21 22:20 ` Matt Sealey
2013-01-21 22:42 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2013-01-21 22:42 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2013-01-21 23:23 ` Matt Sealey
2013-01-21 23:23 ` Matt Sealey
2013-01-21 23:49 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2013-01-21 23:49 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2013-01-22 0:09 ` Matt Sealey
2013-01-22 0:09 ` Matt Sealey
2013-01-22 0:26 ` Matt Sealey
2013-01-22 0:26 ` Matt Sealey
2013-01-21 21:14 ` Matt Sealey
2013-01-21 21:14 ` Matt Sealey
2013-01-21 22:36 ` John Stultz
2013-01-21 22:36 ` John Stultz
2013-01-21 22:49 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2013-01-21 22:49 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2013-01-21 22:54 ` Matt Sealey
2013-01-21 22:54 ` Matt Sealey
2013-01-21 23:13 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2013-01-21 23:13 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2013-01-21 23:30 ` Matt Sealey
2013-01-21 23:30 ` Matt Sealey
2013-01-22 0:02 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2013-01-22 0:02 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2013-01-22 0:38 ` John Stultz
2013-01-22 0:38 ` John Stultz
2013-01-22 0:51 ` John Stultz
2013-01-22 0:51 ` John Stultz
2013-01-22 1:06 ` Matt Sealey
2013-01-22 1:06 ` Matt Sealey
2013-01-22 1:18 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2013-01-22 1:18 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2013-01-22 1:56 ` Matt Sealey
2013-01-22 1:56 ` Matt Sealey
2013-01-22 1:31 ` John Stultz
2013-01-22 1:31 ` John Stultz
2013-01-22 2:10 ` Matt Sealey
2013-01-22 2:10 ` Matt Sealey
2013-01-31 21:31 ` Thomas Gleixner
2013-01-31 21:31 ` Thomas Gleixner
2013-01-21 21:02 ` Matt Sealey
2013-01-21 21:02 ` Matt Sealey
2013-01-21 22:30 ` Arnd Bergmann
2013-01-21 22:30 ` Arnd Bergmann
2013-01-21 22:45 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2013-01-21 22:45 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2013-01-21 23:01 ` Matt Sealey
2013-01-21 23:01 ` Matt Sealey
2013-01-21 21:03 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2013-01-21 21:03 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2013-01-21 23:23 ` Tony Lindgren
2013-01-21 23:23 ` Tony Lindgren
2013-01-22 6:23 ` Santosh Shilimkar
2013-01-22 6:23 ` Santosh Shilimkar
2013-01-22 9:31 ` Arnd Bergmann
2013-01-22 9:31 ` Arnd Bergmann
2013-01-22 10:14 ` Santosh Shilimkar
2013-01-22 10:14 ` Santosh Shilimkar
2013-01-22 14:51 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2013-01-22 14:51 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2013-01-22 15:05 ` Santosh Shilimkar
2013-01-22 15:05 ` Santosh Shilimkar
2013-01-28 6:08 ` Santosh Shilimkar
2013-01-28 6:08 ` Santosh Shilimkar
2013-01-29 0:01 ` John Stultz
2013-01-29 0:01 ` John Stultz
2013-01-29 6:43 ` Santosh Shilimkar [this message]
2013-01-29 6:43 ` Santosh Shilimkar
2013-01-29 10:06 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2013-01-29 10:06 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2013-01-29 18:43 ` John Stultz
2013-01-29 18:43 ` John Stultz
2013-01-22 17:31 ` Arnd Bergmann
2013-01-22 17:31 ` Arnd Bergmann
2013-01-22 18:59 ` John Stultz
2013-01-22 18:59 ` John Stultz
2013-01-22 21:52 ` Tony Lindgren
2013-01-22 21:52 ` Tony Lindgren
2013-01-23 5:18 ` Santosh Shilimkar
2013-01-23 5:18 ` Santosh Shilimkar
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=51076FA2.9070002@ti.com \
--to=santosh.shilimkar@ti.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.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.