On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 09:22:45PM -0700, John Stultz wrote:
> On 02/12/2014 07:42 AM, Miroslav Lichvar wrote:
> > You can see in this test it takes about 2500 updates to correct the
> > initial ntp error and settle down. That's with 1GHz clocksource. In
> > some tests I did with smaller clock freq
Hey Miroslav!
Once again, a few months pass and I finally get some more time to look
at this. :( Sorry for how slow this has been going.
On 02/12/2014 07:42 AM, Miroslav Lichvar wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 06, 2014 at 07:57:03PM -0800, John Stultz wrote:
>> Got a few cycles to take another look at th
On Mon, Jan 06, 2014 at 07:57:03PM -0800, John Stultz wrote:
> Got a few cycles to take another look at this, and tried to address
> Miroslav's latest comments. Please let me know if you have further
> thoughts!
In the simulations this version of the patch does indeed work better
than the previous
On 02/07/2014 03:45 AM, Miroslav Lichvar wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 06, 2014 at 07:57:03PM -0800, John Stultz wrote:
>> Got a few cycles to take another look at this, and tried to address
>> Miroslav's latest comments. Please let me know if you have further
>> thoughts!
> I've had finally some time to lo
On Mon, Jan 06, 2014 at 07:57:03PM -0800, John Stultz wrote:
> Got a few cycles to take another look at this, and tried to address
> Miroslav's latest comments. Please let me know if you have further
> thoughts!
I've had finally some time to look at this, sorry for the delay.
> I also dropped the
On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 9:58 AM, Richard Cochran
wrote:
> I tested for a regression using the patched kernel with the nohz=off
> command line option...
>
> On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 10:15:18AM -0800, John Stultz wrote:
>> On 01/13/2014 09:51 AM, Richard Cochran wrote:
>> >
>> > - Linux 3.12.7-nohz-p
I tested for a regression using the patched kernel with the nohz=off
command line option...
On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 10:15:18AM -0800, John Stultz wrote:
> On 01/13/2014 09:51 AM, Richard Cochran wrote:
> >
> > - Linux 3.12.7-nohz-plain-20140106nohz-plain.log
> > - Linux 3.12.7-nohz
On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 10:15:18AM -0800, John Stultz wrote:
> That's great to hear! Thanks so much, I really appreciate the testing!
> And this is with HZ=?
HZ=1000
> If you do get a chance to look again, I'd also be interested if running
> with nohz=off w/ the fix doesn't show any regression c
On 01/13/2014 09:51 AM, Richard Cochran wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 06, 2014 at 07:57:03PM -0800, John Stultz wrote:
>> I still think this is probably 3.15 or later material, but I'd be
>> very interested in feedback, thoughts, and testing.
> Over the weekend I did a short test of this new approach. I com
On Mon, Jan 06, 2014 at 07:57:03PM -0800, John Stultz wrote:
>
> I still think this is probably 3.15 or later material, but I'd be
> very interested in feedback, thoughts, and testing.
Over the weekend I did a short test of this new approach. I compiled
two kernels, one plain v3.12.7 and one with
Got a few cycles to take another look at this, and tried to address
Miroslav's latest comments. Please let me know if you have further
thoughts!
thanks
-john
The existing timekeeping_adjust logic has always been complicated
to understand. Further, since it was developed prior to NOHZ becoming
co
11 matches
Mail list logo
