Re: [RFC] exponential update_wall_time

From: Ingo Molnar
Date: Thu Sep 28 2006 - 17:20:13 EST

* Roman Zippel <zippel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> > > 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.

lets figure out a way to solve this in some manner - the loop of
thousands of function calls on dynticks didnt look too well. Millions of
kids will be grateful for it :-)

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at