From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754183AbdEQPDJ (ORCPT ); Wed, 17 May 2017 11:03:09 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:46138 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752296AbdEQPDI (ORCPT ); Wed, 17 May 2017 11:03:08 -0400 DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mx1.redhat.com A610080C0A Authentication-Results: ext-mx02.extmail.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: ext-mx02.extmail.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=mlichvar@redhat.com DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 mx1.redhat.com A610080C0A Date: Wed, 17 May 2017 17:03:02 +0200 From: Miroslav Lichvar To: John Stultz Cc: LKML , Richard Cochran , Prarit Bhargava , Marcelo Tosatti , Paul Mackerras , Anton Blanchard , Benjamin Herrenschmidt , Tony Luck , Michael Ellerman , Fenghua Yu Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] timekeeping: Improved NOHZ frequency steering (v2) Message-ID: <20170517150302.GI4156@localhost> References: <1400288204-414-1-git-send-email-john.stultz@linaro.org> <20140519101439.GE4060@localhost> <20140708110816.GB23173@localhost> <53C5F95E.6010300@linaro.org> <20170512151428.GB4156@localhost> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.8.0 (2017-02-23) X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com [10.5.110.26]); Wed, 17 May 2017 15:03:07 +0000 (UTC) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 10:26:12AM -0700, John Stultz wrote: > On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 8:14 AM, Miroslav Lichvar wrote: > > I see this with real PHCs and PTP/NTP synchronization too. It's very > > confusing when the timekeeping changes so much for no apparent reason. > > If we can't remove the old vsyscalls yet, I was thinking maybe a new > > flag could be added to adjtimex to report the error, so applications > > can at least detect this problem and consider stepping the clock in > > order to reset the error? > > > > Thoughts? > > I'd rather not have short-term hacks that applications have to adapt. > So I think we should drop the old vsyscall method in the near term. > Sorry this sort of fell off my radar. Ok. Sounds good. > Do you have an updated set of patches you want to get ready to address > the issue? We can get those reviewed while we increase the pressure on > dropping the OLD_VSYSCALL implementations. I'll send an RFC series shortly. Thanks, -- Miroslav Lichvar