From: Richard Cochran <richardcochran@gmail.com>
To: Jacob Keller <jacob.keller@gmail.com>
Cc: Jeff Kirsher <jeffrey.t.kirsher@intel.com>,
	davem@davemloft.net, Jacob Keller <jacob.e.keller@intel.com>,
	netdev@vger.kernel.org, gospo@redhat.com, sassmann@redhat.com
Subject: Re: [net-next 5/6] ixgbe: add hardware timestamping support
Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2011 16:56:37 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20111020145637.GC1949@netboy.at.omicron.at> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CA+P7+xoP7VE0FEKnLCbzygw499xLr1PFynPn6W0+ud6KwZHgEg@mail.gmail.com>
On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 10:04:33AM -0700, Jacob Keller wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 9:44 AM, Richard Cochran <richardcochran@gmail.com> wrote:
> > So, is this wrap around due to the fact that you are tied to the
> > system time via time_compare? Or, putting it another way, can't you
> > program the hardware time stamping unit so that the registers have
> > some reasonable resolution (like 64 bits worth of nanoseconds) and
> > just offer RAW timestamps?
> 
> The wrap around is due to hardware limitations. The ixgbe devices
> cannot support 64bits worth of nanoseconds and still have the ability
> to adjust the frequency in parts per billion. A larger increment
> increases the resolution available for frequency adjustments, but
> decreases the time it takes for the cycle counter to wrap around.
Oh, well. That stinks.
I think you do want to offer ppb adjustment.
> > I would really like to move away from the timecompare hacks and
> > towards a proper PHC->SYS PPS solution.
> >
> 
> I agree that this is the correct approach. The timecompare
> functionality does have issues.
And these cards are highlighting timecompare weaknesses I had not even
thought of.
I expect that if you offer the RAW time stamps, then it should be
possible to have the time stamp values always correct (or nearly so)
even with a changing link speed. If the link speed change gives an
interrupt, then the ISR can reprogram the frequency compensation
registers and let the counter continue.
> > Again, doing the update thing on every packet won't work for real
> > world PTP scenarios.
> >
> Which is why the PHC solution is better. Work on implementing this
> support is in progress. Out of curiosity, what is the sync rate for
> the scenario that breaks this? I would like to try that rate out on my
> setup.
For the audio/video profile, they have a max of 32 sync packets per
second. Not sure about delay request rate, maybe 16 per second.
Thanks,
Richard
next prev parent reply	other threads:[~2011-10-20 14:57 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2011-10-17 12:20 [net-next 0/6 v2][pull request] Intel Wired LAN Driver Updates Jeff Kirsher
2011-10-17 12:20 ` [net-next 1/6] igbvf: Fix trunk vlan Jeff Kirsher
2011-10-17 12:20 ` [net-next 2/6 v2] igb: Check if subordinate VFs are assigned to virtual machines Jeff Kirsher
2011-10-17 15:53   ` Joe Perches
2011-10-17 12:20 ` [net-next 3/6] ixgbe: fix endianess when writing driver version to firmware Jeff Kirsher
2011-10-17 12:21 ` [net-next 4/6] ixgbe: allow eeprom writes via ethtool Jeff Kirsher
2011-10-17 12:21 ` [net-next 5/6] ixgbe: add hardware timestamping support Jeff Kirsher
2011-10-17 16:44   ` Richard Cochran
2011-10-19 17:04     ` Jacob Keller
2011-10-20 14:56       ` Richard Cochran [this message]
2011-10-20 19:57         ` Keller, Jacob E
2011-10-17 12:21 ` [net-next 6/6] ixgbe: change the eeprom version reported by ethtool Jeff Kirsher
2011-10-17 15:57   ` Joe Perches
2011-10-17 17:16     ` Ben Hutchings
2011-10-17 18:02       ` Tantilov, Emil S
2011-10-17 22:49 ` [net-next 0/6 v2][pull request] Intel Wired LAN Driver Updates David Miller
2011-10-17 22:53   ` Jeff Kirsher
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2011-10-17 11:32 [net-next 0/6][pull " Jeff Kirsher
2011-10-17 11:32 ` [net-next 5/6] ixgbe: add hardware timestamping support Jeff Kirsher
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=20111020145637.GC1949@netboy.at.omicron.at \
    --to=richardcochran@gmail.com \
    --cc=davem@davemloft.net \
    --cc=gospo@redhat.com \
    --cc=jacob.e.keller@intel.com \
    --cc=jacob.keller@gmail.com \
    --cc=jeffrey.t.kirsher@intel.com \
    --cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=sassmann@redhat.com \
    /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).