* john stultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 2006-12-06 at 15:33 +0100, Roman Zippel wrote:
> > On Wed, 6 Dec 2006, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > i disagree with you and it's pretty low-impact anyway. There's still
> > > quite many HZ/tick assumptions all around the time code (NTP being one
> > > example), we'll deal with those via other patches.
> >
> > Why do you pick on the NTP code? That's actually one of the places where
> > assumptions about HZ are largely gone. NTP state is updated incrementally
> > and this won't change, but the update frequency can now be easily
> > disconnected from HZ.
>
> Hey Roman,
> Here's my rough first attempt at doing so. I'd not call it easy, but
> maybe you have some suggestions for a simpler way?
>
> Basically INTERVAL_LENGTH_NSEC defines the NTP interval length that
> the time code will use to accumulate with. In this patch I've pushed
> it out to a full second, but it could be set via config
> (NSEC_PER_SEC/HZ for regular systems, something larger for systems
> using dynticks).
cool! I'll give this one a go in -rt, combined with the exponential
second-overflow patch. (that one is now algorithmically safe, right?)
Ingo
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
