From: David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org>
To: Rodolfo Giometti <giometti@enneenne.com>,
Richard Cochran <richardcochran@gmail.com>,
Andrew Lunn <andrew+netdev@lunn.ch>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>,
Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>,
John Stultz <jstultz@google.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@kernel.org>,
Stephen Boyd <sboyd@kernel.org>,
Miroslav Lichvar <mlichvar@redhat.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
Alexander Gordeev <agordeev@linux.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 3/4] pps: Always use ktime_get_snapshot_id() for pps_get_ts()
Date: Wed, 02 Sep 2026 00:56:56 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <bc429684e92a3fed3effab039b3b3c8f90b0c347.camel@infradead.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <920a2d70-c1ec-452b-8fc4-aebf1f6af412@enneenne.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3179 bytes --]
On Tue, 2026-09-01 at 17:35 +0200, Rodolfo Giometti wrote:
> On Sat, 2026-08-29 at 21:57 +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
> > Rather than using that more accurate timestamp *only* in the case where
> > CONFIG_NTP_PPS is enabled, do so unconditionally.
> >
> > static inline void pps_get_ts(struct pps_event_time *ts)
> > {
> > -#ifdef CONFIG_NTP_PPS
> > struct system_time_snapshot snap;
> >
> > ktime_get_snapshot_id(CLOCK_REALTIME, &snap);
> > ts->ts_real = ktime_to_timespec64(snap.systime);
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_NTP_PPS
> > ts->ts_raw = ktime_to_timespec64(snap.monoraw);
> > -#else
> > - ktime_get_real_ts64(&ts->ts_real);
> > #endif
> > }
>
> Why are you removing ktime_get_real_ts64()?
Because it's inaccurate.
> The commit message says you are using the more accurate timestamp
> unconditionally. What the diff does is delete the !CONFIG_NTP_PPS
> branch. Those are not the same thing, and the second one changes an
> ABI: ts_real reaches userspace through PPS_FETCH on /dev/ppsN and
> through /sys/class/pps/ppsX/assert, documented in
> Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-pps and unchanged since 2008. Until
> now it came from ktime_get_real_ts64(), the same clock userspace reads
> with clock_gettime(CLOCK_REALTIME). After your patch it does not.
Hm? After the patch it still reports CLOCK_REALTIME. Just more
accurately. Which is exactly what the commit message was trying to say.
> That needs a good reason and the commit message does not give one.
> Give me that first. Until then the details do not matter.
ktime_get_real_ts64() returns an approximate value of CLOCK_REALTIME
which is limited by the quantisation of the multiplier in the kernel's
core timekeeping. ktime_get_snapshot_id(CLOCK_REALTIME) returns a value
which is *corrected* for that drift.
> Separately: are we sure that calling ktime_get_snapshot_id() does not
> introduce much larger delays than ktime_get_real_ts64()? pps_get_ts()
> runs in hard IRQ, and in pps-gpio it is the first statement of the
> handler. Whatever it costs sits between the edge and the timestamp,
> and that is the one thing PPS has to keep short.
The critical measure here is the time from the edge to the actual
tk_clock_read() or tk_clock_read_snapshot() call which captures the
hardware counter value which is converted into the CLOCK_REALTIME
reading.
ktime_get_snapshot_id() is what's been called in the CONFIG_NTP_PPS
case for a very long time — we're just making it use that same path
unconditionally. The difference between that and ktime_get_real_ts64()
is tiny, but non-zero — it's about 2ns to the snapshot on my x86 test
host.
Even ktime_get_real_ts64() is doing things before the snapshot that
perhaps it needn't (setting ts->tv_sec), and could save us a couple of
cycles. If this is a real concern, we could certainly look at putting
the clock snapshot as early as possible and optimising the common case
of clock_id == CLOCK_REALTIME.
> I would like to see that measured on something other than an x86 VM
> with a TSC. A small 32-bit ARM board is what I worry about.
Ack. I'll take a look.
[-- Attachment #2: smime.p7s --]
[-- Type: application/pkcs7-signature, Size: 6179 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-09-01 23:57 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-08-29 20:56 [PATCH v4 0/4] Add ntp_error to clock snapshot, enable NTP_PPS on tickless kernel David Woodhouse
2026-08-29 20:56 ` [PATCH v4 1/4] timekeeping: Apply extrapolated ntp_error to clock snapshots David Woodhouse
2026-08-29 20:57 ` [PATCH v4 2/4] pps: Drop the !NO_HZ_COMMON dependency from NTP_PPS David Woodhouse
2026-09-01 15:35 ` Rodolfo Giometti
2026-09-02 0:13 ` David Woodhouse
2026-08-29 20:57 ` [PATCH v4 3/4] pps: Always use ktime_get_snapshot_id() for pps_get_ts() David Woodhouse
2026-09-01 15:35 ` Rodolfo Giometti
2026-09-01 23:56 ` David Woodhouse [this message]
2026-08-29 20:57 ` [PATCH v4 4/4] [DO NOT MERGE] ptp: ptp_vmclock: Add simulated 1PPS support David Woodhouse
2026-09-01 15:35 ` [PATCH v4 0/4] Add ntp_error to clock snapshot, enable NTP_PPS on tickless kernel Rodolfo Giometti
2026-09-01 23:37 ` David Woodhouse
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=bc429684e92a3fed3effab039b3b3c8f90b0c347.camel@infradead.org \
--to=dwmw2@infradead.org \
--cc=agordeev@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=andrew+netdev@lunn.ch \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=edumazet@google.com \
--cc=giometti@enneenne.com \
--cc=jstultz@google.com \
--cc=kuba@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mlichvar@redhat.com \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=pabeni@redhat.com \
--cc=richardcochran@gmail.com \
--cc=sboyd@kernel.org \
--cc=tglx@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