Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 28 Sep 2006 23:01:25 +0200 (CEST) | From | Roman Zippel <> | Subject | Re: [RFC] exponential update_wall_time |
| |
Hi,
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.
bye, Roman - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |