Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1761334AbYAaBz5 (ORCPT ); Wed, 30 Jan 2008 20:55:57 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754860AbYAaBzt (ORCPT ); Wed, 30 Jan 2008 20:55:49 -0500 Received: from scrub.xs4all.nl ([194.109.195.176]:2419 "EHLO scrub.xs4all.nl" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753847AbYAaBzs (ORCPT ); Wed, 30 Jan 2008 20:55:48 -0500 Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2008 02:55:35 +0100 (CET) From: Roman Zippel X-X-Sender: roman@scrub.home To: john stultz cc: lkml , Andrew Morton , Ingo Molnar , Steven Rostedt Subject: Re: [PATCH] correct inconsistent ntp interval/tick_length usage In-Reply-To: <1201659263.6766.40.camel@localhost> Message-ID: References: <1201142334.6383.40.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1201573686.6766.13.camel@localhost> <1201659263.6766.40.camel@localhost> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 791 Lines: 19 Hi, On Tue, 29 Jan 2008, john stultz wrote: > +/* Because using NSEC_PER_SEC would be too easy */ > +#define NTP_INTERVAL_LENGTH ((((s64)TICK_USEC*NSEC_PER_USEC*USER_HZ)+CLOCK_TICK_ADJUST)/NTP_INTERVAL_FREQ) Why are you using USER_HZ? Did you test this with HZ!=100? Anyway, please don't make more complicated than it already is. What I said previously about the update interval is still valid, so the correct solution is to use the simpler NTP_INTERVAL_LENGTH calculation from my last mail and to omit the correction for NO_HZ. bye, Roman -- 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/