Re: [RFC] exponential update_wall_time
From: Roman Zippel
Date: Thu Sep 28 2006 - 17:05:05 EST
On Wed, 27 Sep 2006, john stultz wrote:
> > You have to keep in mind that ntp time is basically advanced in 1 second
> > steps (or HZ ticks or freq cycles to be precise) and you have to keep that
> > property. You can slice that second however you like, but it still has to
> > add up to 1 second. Right now we slice it into HZ steps, but this can be
> > rather easily changed now.
> Right off, it seems it would then make sense to make the ntp "ticks" one
> second in length. And set the interval values accordingly.
> However, there might be clocksources that are incapable of running
> freely for a full second w/o overflowing. In that case we would need to
> set the interval values and the ntp tick length accordingly. It seems we
> need some sort of interface to ntp to define that base tick length.
> Would that be ok by you?
I don't see how you want to do this without some rather complex
calculations. I doubt this will make anything easier.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/