Re: [RFC - 0/9] Generic timekeeping subsystem (v. B5)

[john stultz]

On Tue, 2005-08-23 at 13:30 +0200, Roman Zippel wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Aug 2005, john stultz wrote:
> 
> > The reason why we calculate the interval_length in the continuous
> > timesource case is because we are not assuming anything about the
> > frequency that the timekeeping_periodic_hook() is called.
> 
> The problem with your patch is that it doesn't allow making such 
> assumptions.
> Anyway, it's rather simple, if you want to update the time asynchronously:
> 
> 	cycle_offset = get_cycles() - last_update;
> 
> 	while (cycle_offset >= update_cycles) {
> 		cycle_offset -= update_cycles;
> 		last_update += update_cycles;
> 		// at init: system_update = update_cycles * mult;
> 		system_time += system_update;
> 		xtime += [tick_nsec, time_adj];
> 	}

Hmm. An issue cropped up when I started working on this: It seems its
prone to time inconsistencies. 

One of the bug issues with my work is that we consistently accumulate
time in the exact same manner that we use it when calculating
gettimeofday.

That is:
	gettimeofday():
		xtime + cyc2ns(timesource, ntp_adj, cycle_delta)

	periodic_hook():
		interval = cyc2ns(timesource, ntp_adj, cycle_delta)
		xtime += interval
		...

Since we accumulate the entire interval using the same ntp_adjustment,
we ensure that time will not go briefly backwards around a call to
periodic_hook().

In the case above, you're accumulating in fixed cycle intervals. This
does avoid having to do the mult/shift combo each interrupt, however
since you do not accumulate the entire interval, and there is some
sub-tick remainder in cycle_offset. We have to ensure that that sub-tick
remainder is accumulated at the next interrupt using the same ntp
adjustment it would use in a call to gettimeofday() just prior to this
interrupt.


Not yet sure how to get around that issue. I'll keep working on it, and
maybe you might be able to shed some light on it?

thanks
-john


-
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/