From: john stultz <johnstul@us.ibm.com>
To: David Mosberger <davidm@hpl.hp.com>
Cc: Christoph Lameter <clameter@sgi.com>,
george anzinger <george@mvista.com>,
lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
ia64 <linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: gettimeofday nanoseconds patch (makes it possible for the
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2004 01:35:20 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1089855319.1388.295.camel@cog.beaverton.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <16629.56037.120532.779793@napali.hpl.hp.com>
On Wed, 2004-07-14 at 18:16, David Mosberger wrote:
> >>>>> On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 17:48:06 -0700, john stultz <johnstul@us.ibm.com> said:
>
> John> Although you still have the issue w/ NTP adjustments being
> John> ignored, but last time I looked at the time_interpolator code,
> John> it seemed it was being ignored there too, so at least your not
> John> doing worse then the ia64 do_gettimeofday(). [If I'm doing the
> John> time_interpolator code a great injustice with the above,
> John> someone please correct me]
>
> The existing time-interpolator code for ia64 never lets time go
> backwards (in the absence of a settimeofday(), of course). There is
> no need to special-case NTP.
I guess I don't understand then, from my looking over it I didn't see
where the time_interpolator_get_offset() is scaled back when NTP is
slewing the clock. It seems that while the time-interpolator code does
keep time from going backwards, it also inadvertently ends up
compensating for NTP slow down. Thus the slewing is not visible to
userspace.
In order for this to happen, time_interpolator_get_offset() would need
to be scaled or capped as to that it would not return more then the
length of the *NTP adjusted tick* during an actual tick interval.
I may be missing something, so please let me know if I'm wrong.
thanks
-john
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-07-15 1:35 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2004-07-14 16:41 gettimeofday nanoseconds patch (makes it possible for the posix-timer Christoph Lameter
2004-07-14 20:09 ` gettimeofday nanoseconds patch (makes it possible for the john stultz
2004-07-14 20:28 ` Christoph Lameter
2004-07-14 21:14 ` David Mosberger
2004-07-14 21:15 ` john stultz
2004-07-15 0:08 ` Christoph Lameter
2004-07-15 0:48 ` john stultz
2004-07-15 1:16 ` David Mosberger
2004-07-15 1:35 ` john stultz [this message]
2004-07-15 3:57 ` David Mosberger
2004-07-15 15:31 ` Christoph Lameter
2004-07-15 16:14 ` john stultz
2004-07-15 17:03 ` Christoph Lameter
2004-07-15 17:18 ` john stultz
2004-07-15 22:59 ` gettimeofday nanoseconds patch (makes it possible for the posix-timer George Anzinger
2004-07-16 2:44 ` gettimeofday nanoseconds patch (makes it possible for the Christoph Lameter
2004-07-14 21:09 ` gettimeofday nanoseconds patch (makes it possible for the posix-timer functions to return higher Matthew Wilcox
2004-07-14 21:27 ` gettimeofday nanoseconds patch (makes it possible for the Christoph Lameter
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=1089855319.1388.295.camel@cog.beaverton.ibm.com \
--to=johnstul@us.ibm.com \
--cc=clameter@sgi.com \
--cc=davidm@hpl.hp.com \
--cc=george@mvista.com \
--cc=linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox