From: Miroslav Lichvar <mlichvar@redhat.com>
To: John Stultz <john.stultz@linaro.org>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"Nuno Gonçalves" <nunojpg@gmail.com>,
"Prarit Bhargava" <prarit@redhat.com>,
"Richard Cochran" <richardcochran@gmail.com>,
"Ingo Molnar" <mingo@kernel.org>,
"Thomas Gleixner" <tglx@linutronix.de>,
"Shuah Khan" <shuahkh@osg.samsung.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2 (v2)] kselftest: timers: Add adjtick test to validate adjtimex() tick adjustments
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2015 16:48:43 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20150914144843.GB11010@localhost> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CALAqxLVVjfYW-W-Jhu9Yv+Rb18ao-DKne1JMYgttKNEeHzmapg@mail.gmail.com>
On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 11:14:25AM -0700, John Stultz wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 10:42 AM, John Stultz <john.stultz@linaro.org> wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 5:02 AM, Miroslav Lichvar <mlichvar@redhat.com> wrote:
> >> The precision of the clock is better than microsecond, so that
> >> wouldn't explain a 12 ppm error over the 15 second interval. I guess
> >> it's due to a larger xtime_remainder, which basically is a hidden
> >> frequency offset added (and not multiplied) to the NTP frequency
> >> offset. Would that explain it?
> >
> > I think its due to the ntp_error being large enough prior (or during
> > the freq transition) that we're still applying a single unit freq
> > adjustment for that error. But I'm guessing on the acpi_pm clocksource
> > the shift is low enough that a single unit adjustment is coarse enough
> > to affect the ppm, since I see the same consistently measured ppm
> > result if I both increase the settling time measurement sleep times.
> > If I left it for a long long time, the single unit correction would
> > likely null the error out and we'd get the desired result, but I don't
> > think the test has time for that.
I ran few tests and it doesn't seem to be a problem with large
ntp_error or an extremely slow adjustment of the multiplier for the
new frequency.
I think it really is the xtime_remainder correction. It is a fixed
offset added to the ntp error on each tick to compensate for the
cycle_interval rounding error. With the acpi_pm clocksource and 1000Hz
update rate xtime_remainder is -127 ns, which effectively speeds up
the clock by 127 ppm. When NTP slows the clock down by 10%, the
correction is not decreased by 10% and we can observe the clock is
running faster by 12.7 ppm than expected.
Is there a cheap way to calculate this?
xtime_remainder * (ntp_tick >> ntp_error_shift) / NTP_INTERVAL_LENGTH
> So bumping the fail level to > 100ppm avoids false positives due to
> long-term error correction with coarse clocksources, but still is
> tight enough to catch the dampened approximation issue caused by the
> abs(s64) problem.
>
> Any objection to moving to that? It is still a 0.01% error bound.
No objection from me as long as we understand where that error is
coming from.
--
Miroslav Lichvar
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-09-14 14:48 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-09-09 23:07 [PATCH 1/2] time: Fix timekeeping_freqadjust()'s incorrect use of abs() instead of abs64() John Stultz
2015-09-09 23:07 ` [PATCH 2/2 (v2)] kselftest: timers: Add adjtick test to validate adjtimex() tick adjustments John Stultz
2015-09-10 12:02 ` Miroslav Lichvar
2015-09-10 17:42 ` John Stultz
2015-09-10 18:14 ` John Stultz
2015-09-14 14:48 ` Miroslav Lichvar [this message]
2015-10-02 20:25 ` John Stultz
2015-10-02 20:27 ` John Stultz
2015-10-02 20:49 ` John Stultz
2015-09-13 8:32 ` [PATCH 1/2] time: Fix timekeeping_freqadjust()'s incorrect use of abs() instead of abs64() Ingo Molnar
2015-09-14 23:24 ` John Stultz
2015-09-13 11:07 ` [tip:timers/urgent] time: Fix timekeeping_freqadjust()' s " tip-bot for John Stultz
2015-10-05 15:10 ` Nuno Gonçalves
2015-10-06 8:05 ` Greg KH
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20150914144843.GB11010@localhost \
--to=mlichvar@redhat.com \
--cc=john.stultz@linaro.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=nunojpg@gmail.com \
--cc=prarit@redhat.com \
--cc=richardcochran@gmail.com \
--cc=shuahkh@osg.samsung.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).