[email protected] said: > It seems hwclock has a fallback to handle RTCs without interrupts by reading > the RTC time in a busy loop. I don't think that would be acceptable for > chronyd to consume 100% of a CPU core just to track an RTC.
The RTC is a clock rather than a source of arbitrary pulses. You should be able to predict when it will tick and start polling a bit before that. It would be an interesting experiment to see how much CPU it takes and/or how accurately you can locate the ticks. Note that if you guess wrong (aka late) you can stop spinning after a short while and try again for the next tick. If you have no idea when it will tick, you can probably do a binary search. -- These are my opinions. I hate spam. -- To unsubscribe email [email protected] with "unsubscribe" in the subject. For help email [email protected] with "help" in the subject. Trouble? Email [email protected].
