public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@hp.com>
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Need better is_better_time_interpolator() algorithm
Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2005 10:44:28 -0600	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1124988269.5331.49.camel@tdi> (raw)

Hi,

   In playing with an HPET device, I noticed that
kernel/timer.c:is_better_time_interpolator() is completely non-symmetric
in the timer it returns.  The test is simply:

return new->frequency > 2*time_interpolator->frequency ||
 (unsigned long)new->drift < (unsigned long)time_interpolator->drift;

Given two timers:

(a) 1.5GHz, 750ppm
(b) 250Mhz, 500ppm

the resulting "better" timer is completely dependent on the order
they're passed in.  For example, (a),(b) = (b); (b),(a) = (a).

   What are we really looking for in a "better" timer?  There are at
least 4 factors that I can think of that seem important to determining a
better clock:

      * resolution (frequency)
      * accuracy (drift)
      * access latency (may be non-uniform across the system?)
      * jitter (monotonically increasing)

How can we munge these all together to come up with a single goodness
factor for comparison?  There's probably a thesis covering algorithms to
handle this.  Anyone know of one or have some good ideas?  Thanks,

	Alex

-- 
Alex Williamson                             HP Linux & Open Source Lab


             reply	other threads:[~2005-08-25 16:45 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2005-08-25 16:44 Alex Williamson [this message]
2005-08-25 17:36 ` Need better is_better_time_interpolator() algorithm john stultz
2005-08-25 18:43   ` Alex Williamson
2005-08-25 19:02     ` john stultz
2005-08-26 15:39     ` Christoph Lameter
2005-08-26 16:18       ` Alex Williamson
2005-08-26 19:16         ` George Anzinger
2005-08-26 19:26           ` Alex Williamson
2005-08-26 19:33             ` Christoph Lameter
2005-08-26 19:51               ` George Anzinger
2005-08-27 11:55               ` Pavel Machek
2005-08-29 17:00                 ` Christoph Lameter
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2005-08-25 21:40 linux
2005-08-25 23:07 ` Alex Williamson
2005-08-26 16:48   ` 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=1124988269.5331.49.camel@tdi \
    --to=alex.williamson@hp.com \
    --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