From: Santosh Shilimkar <santosh.shilimkar@ti.com>
To: John Stultz <john.stultz@linaro.org>
Cc: Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@arm.linux.org.uk>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>, Tony Lindgren <tony@atomide.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Matt Sealey <matt@genesi-usa.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, Ben Dooks <ben@simtec.co.uk>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
Linux ARM Kernel ML <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: One of these things (CONFIG_HZ) is not like the others..
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2013 12:13:46 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <51076FA2.9070002@ti.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <5107114C.4070307@linaro.org>
Jon,
On Tuesday 29 January 2013 05:31 AM, John Stultz wrote:
> On 01/27/2013 10:08 PM, Santosh Shilimkar wrote:
>> On Tuesday 22 January 2013 08:35 PM, Santosh Shilimkar wrote:
>>> On Tuesday 22 January 2013 08:21 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
>>>> On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 03:44:03PM +0530, Santosh Shilimkar wrote:
[..]
>>> Thanks for expanding it. It is really helpful.
>>>
>>>> And I think further discussion is pointless until such research has
>>>> been
>>>> done (or someone who _really_ knows the time keeping/timer/sched code
>>>> inside out comments.)
>>>>
>>> Fully agree about experimentation to re-asses the drift.
>>> From what I recollect from past, few OMAP customers did
>>> report the time drift issue and that is how the switch
>>> from 100 --> 128 happened.
>>>
>>> Anyway I have added the suggested task to my long todo list.
>>>
>> So I tried to see if any time drift with HZ = 100 on OMAP. I ran the
>> setup for 62 hours and 27 mins with time synced up once with NTP server.
>> I measure about ~174 millisecond drift which is almost noise considering
>> the observed duration was ~224820000 milliseconds.
>
> So 174ms drift doesn't sound great, as < 2ms (often much less - though
> that depends on how close the server is) can be expected with NTP.
> Although its not clear how you were measuring: Did you see a max 174ms
> offset while trying to sync with NTP? Was that offset shortly after
> starting NTP or after NTP converged down?
>
To avoid the server latency, we didn't do continuous sync. The time was
synced in the beginning and after 62.5 hours (#ntpd -qg) and the drift
of about 174 ms was observed. As you said this could be because of
server sync time along with probably some addition from system calls
from #ntpd. As mentioned, the other run with HZ = 128 which started
15 hours 20 mins is already showing about 24 mS drift now. I will
let it run for couple of more days just to have similar duration run.
Regards,
santosh
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-01-29 6:43 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 48+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-01-21 20:01 One of these things (CONFIG_HZ) is not like the others Matt Sealey
2013-01-21 20:41 ` Arnd Bergmann
2013-01-21 21:00 ` John Stultz
2013-01-21 21:12 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2013-01-21 22:18 ` John Stultz
2013-01-21 22:44 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2013-01-22 8:27 ` Arnd Bergmann
2013-01-21 22:20 ` Matt Sealey
2013-01-21 22:42 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2013-01-21 23:23 ` Matt Sealey
2013-01-21 23:49 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2013-01-22 0:09 ` Matt Sealey
2013-01-22 0:26 ` Matt Sealey
2013-01-21 21:14 ` Matt Sealey
2013-01-21 22:36 ` John Stultz
2013-01-21 22:49 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2013-01-21 22:54 ` Matt Sealey
2013-01-21 23:13 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2013-01-21 23:30 ` Matt Sealey
2013-01-22 0:02 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2013-01-22 0:38 ` John Stultz
2013-01-22 0:51 ` John Stultz
2013-01-22 1:06 ` Matt Sealey
2013-01-22 1:18 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2013-01-22 1:56 ` Matt Sealey
2013-01-22 1:31 ` John Stultz
2013-01-22 2:10 ` Matt Sealey
2013-01-31 21:31 ` Thomas Gleixner
2013-01-21 21:02 ` Matt Sealey
2013-01-21 22:30 ` Arnd Bergmann
2013-01-21 22:45 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2013-01-21 23:01 ` Matt Sealey
2013-01-21 21:03 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2013-01-21 23:23 ` Tony Lindgren
2013-01-22 6:23 ` Santosh Shilimkar
2013-01-22 9:31 ` Arnd Bergmann
2013-01-22 10:14 ` Santosh Shilimkar
2013-01-22 14:51 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2013-01-22 15:05 ` Santosh Shilimkar
2013-01-28 6:08 ` Santosh Shilimkar
2013-01-29 0:01 ` John Stultz
2013-01-29 6:43 ` Santosh Shilimkar [this message]
2013-01-29 10:06 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2013-01-29 18:43 ` John Stultz
2013-01-22 17:31 ` Arnd Bergmann
2013-01-22 18:59 ` John Stultz
2013-01-22 21:52 ` Tony Lindgren
2013-01-23 5:18 ` Santosh Shilimkar
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=51076FA2.9070002@ti.com \
--to=santosh.shilimkar@ti.com \
--cc=arnd@arndb.de \
--cc=ben@simtec.co.uk \
--cc=john.stultz@linaro.org \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux@arm.linux.org.uk \
--cc=matt@genesi-usa.com \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=tony@atomide.com \
/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).