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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).