Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Tue, 1 Dec 2020 18:14:20 +0100
From:   Miroslav Lichvar <mlichvar@redhat.com>
To:     Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca>
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        John Stultz <john.stultz@linaro.org>,
        Prarit Bhargava <prarit@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] rtc: adapt allowed RTC update error
Message-ID: <20201201171420.GN1900232@localhost>
References: <20201201143835.2054508-1-mlichvar@redhat.com>
 <20201201161224.GF5487@ziepe.ca>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20201201161224.GF5487@ziepe.ca>
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Dec 01, 2020 at 12:12:24PM -0400, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 01, 2020 at 03:38:35PM +0100, Miroslav Lichvar wrote:
> > +	unsigned long time_set_nsec_fuzz;
> > +	static unsigned int attempt;
> 
> Adding a static value instide a static inline should not be done

Well, grepping through the other header files in include/linux, this
would not be the first case.

> I'm not sure using a static like this is the best idea anyhow, if you
> want something like this it should be per-rtc, not global

If there are multiple RTCs, are they all updated in this 11-minute
sync?

> Did you look at why time has become so in-accurate in your system? 5
> jiffies is usually a pretty long time?

I found no good explanation. It seems to depend on what system is
doing, if it's idle, etc. I suspect it's a property of the workqueues
that they cannot generally guarantee the jobs to run exactly on time.
I tried switching to the non-power-efficient and high priority
workqueues and it didn't seem to make a big difference.

-- 
Miroslav Lichvar