Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754928AbXABTua (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Jan 2007 14:50:30 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754936AbXABTua (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Jan 2007 14:50:30 -0500 Received: from e3.ny.us.ibm.com ([32.97.182.143]:42499 "EHLO e3.ny.us.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754939AbXABTu3 (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Jan 2007 14:50:29 -0500 Subject: Re: [RFC] HZ free ntp From: john stultz To: Roman Zippel Cc: Ingo Molnar , Thomas Gleixner , Andrew Morton , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <200701011929.28546.zippel@linux-m68k.org> References: <20061204204024.2401148d.akpm@osdl.org> <1166578357.5594.3.camel@localhost> <1166579658.5594.6.camel@localhost> <200701011929.28546.zippel@linux-m68k.org> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2007 11:46:24 -0800 Message-Id: <1167767185.3141.15.camel@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.8.1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1457 Lines: 39 On Mon, 2007-01-01 at 19:29 +0100, Roman Zippel wrote: > On Wednesday 20 December 2006 02:54, john stultz wrote: > > > And here would be the follow on patch (again *untested*) for > > CONFIG_NO_HZ slowing the time accumulation down to once per second. > > Changing it to one creates a potential problem with calling second_overflow(). > It should be called every NTP_INTERVAL_FREQ times, but occasionally it's off > by one (when xtime is close to a full second and the tick length is different > from 1sec). At a higher frequency that's not much of a problem, but at one it > means second_overflow() is occasionally called twice a second or skipped for > a second. Usually the error should be quite small, but sometimes it can be > significant. > So in this case the loop in update_wall_time() should rather look like this: > > while (offset >= clock->cycle_interval) { > ... > second_overflow(); > while (clock->xtime_nsec >= (u64)NSEC_PER_SEC << clock->shift) { > clock->xtime_nsec -= (u64)NSEC_PER_SEC << clock->shift; > xtime.tv_sec++; > } > ... > } > > (Also note the change from "if" to "while".) Ah, good catch! Thank you, I'll add that, retest and send it to akpm. thanks -john - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/