From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>
Cc: Rodolfo Giometti <giometti@linux.it>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org>,
Dave Jones <davej@redhat.com>, Sam Ravnborg <sam@ravnborg.org>,
Greg KH <greg@kroah.com>, Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@oracle.com>,
Kay Sievers <kay.sievers@vrfy.org>,
Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@gmail.com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
John Stultz <johnstul@us.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] LinuxPPS core support.
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 07:58:01 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20090223065801.GA16621@elte.hu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <49A1BC28.9020402@zytor.com>
* H. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com> wrote:
> Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >>
> >> Common use is the combination of the NTPD as userland program
> >> with a GPS receiver as PPS source to obtain a wallclock-time
> >> with sub-millisecond synchronisation to UTC.
> >
> > Hm. I was looking at this stuff with the prospect of adding it
> > to the timer tree, but i'm really struggling with a few
> > fundamental questions.
> >
> > The most basic one is: why do we need this?
> >
> > The main purpose of your current patchset seems to be to deliver
> > interrupt timestamps to user-space, where it will in essence be
> > used to feed new adjtimex adjustments via ntpd.
> >
> > I.e. the whole thing comes around in a circle in the end, but
> > via user-space, where jitter will only increase.
> >
> > Why not cut out the jittery middle man and add some intelligent
> > API to register PPS interrupt sources straight with the NTP
> > code, and let those IRQ timestamps be fed _directly_ into our
> > time adjustment code?
> >
>
> Well, let's be fair here... the kernel-user space time model
> involving ntpd has been very carefully developed over a period
> of over a decade. It's known to work. The userspace
> involvement isn't just about feeding the data to the local
> clock, but also -- or perhaps primarily so -- to keep the
> timing inside ntpd calibrated, as that is the time that will
> be provided to the outside world.
Sure thing, the policy bits should still be done by user-space -
something does have to know that there's a PPS device on the
serial, parallel or any other port, and has to configure set up
the actual parameters as well, etc.
What i'm pointing out is that there's no technical benefit from
passing the _timestamps_ through user-space and from not
coupling the NTP code with the PPS edges.
Nor has it really been designed into NTP that way. We already
have all the traditional PPS parameters in the NTP syscall
interface:
include/linux/timex.h:
struct timex {
[...]
long ppsfreq; /* pps frequency (scaled ppm) (ro) */
long jitter; /* pps jitter (us) (ro) */
int shift; /* interval duration (s) (shift) (ro) */
long stabil; /* pps stability (scaled ppm) (ro) */
long jitcnt; /* jitter limit exceeded (ro) */
long calcnt; /* calibration intervals (ro) */
long errcnt; /* calibration errors (ro) */
long stbcnt; /* stability limit exceeded (ro) */
(these are the bits to query the state of kernel-side PPS
support.)
and we have the bits to enable a PPS line disciple, etc., etc.
We might need some extensions, but since the PPS device will be
handled by the kernel anyway and the NTP adjustments are done in
the kernel too, there's no strong reason to route the actual
timestamps via user-space. In fact, doing so obviously increases
jitter and slows down NTP convergence.
Ingo
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-02-23 6:58 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-02-10 14:05 LinuxPPS core (Version 2): the PPS Linux implementation Rodolfo Giometti
2009-02-10 14:05 ` [PATCH 1/1] LinuxPPS core support Rodolfo Giometti
2009-02-22 20:39 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-02-22 20:57 ` H. Peter Anvin
2009-02-23 6:58 ` Ingo Molnar [this message]
2009-02-24 10:13 ` Rodolfo Giometti
2009-02-10 23:54 ` LinuxPPS core (Version 2): the PPS Linux implementation Andrew Morton
2009-02-10 23:58 ` H. Peter Anvin
2009-02-11 1:51 ` Christoph Hellwig
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2009-05-22 6:12 LinuxPPS core (Version 3): " Rodolfo Giometti
2009-05-22 6:12 ` [PATCH 1/1] LinuxPPS core support Rodolfo Giometti
2009-05-26 23:33 ` Andrew Morton
2009-05-27 9:08 ` Alan Cox
2009-05-27 12:35 ` Folkert van Heusden
2009-05-27 9:38 ` Rodolfo Giometti
2009-02-01 17:55 LinuxPPS core (Version 1): the PPS Linux implementation Rodolfo Giometti
2009-02-01 17:55 ` [PATCH 1/1] LinuxPPS core support Rodolfo Giometti
2009-02-03 9:14 ` Christoph Hellwig
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=20090223065801.GA16621@elte.hu \
--to=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk \
--cc=davej@redhat.com \
--cc=dwmw2@infradead.org \
--cc=giometti@linux.it \
--cc=greg@kroah.com \
--cc=hch@infradead.org \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=johnstul@us.ibm.com \
--cc=kay.sievers@vrfy.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mtk.manpages@gmail.com \
--cc=randy.dunlap@oracle.com \
--cc=sam@ravnborg.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