archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: John Stultz <>
To: Thomas Gleixner <>
Cc: Christopher Hall <>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <>,
	linux-rt-users <>,,
	Gavin Hindman <>,, Peter Zijlstra <>,
	LKML <>,
	Miroslav Lichvar <>
Subject: Re: TSC to Mono-raw Drift
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2018 11:31:00 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <>

On Fri, Oct 19, 2018 at 3:36 PM, John Stultz <> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 19, 2018 at 1:50 PM, Thomas Gleixner <> wrote:
>> John,
>> On Fri, 19 Oct 2018, John Stultz wrote:
>>> On Fri, Oct 19, 2018 at 11:57 AM, Thomas Gleixner <> wrote:
>>> > I don't think you need complex oscillation for that. The error is constant
>>> > and small enough that it is a fractional nanoseconds thing with an interval
>>> > <= 1s. So you can just add that in a regular interval. Due to it being
>>> > small you can't observe time jumping I think.
>>> Well, from the examples the trouble is we seem to be a bit fast,
>>> rather then slow.
>>> So we'll have to reduce mult by one, and rework the calculations, but
>>> maybe something like this (correcting the raw_interval value) would
>>> work.
>> Shouldn't be rocket science. It's a one off calculation of adjustment value
>> and maybe the period at which the correction happens.
>>> But this also sort of breaks, fundamental argument that the raw clock
>>> is a simple mult/shift transformation of the underlying clocksource
>>> counter. Its not the accuracy of the clock but the consistency that
>>> was key.
>>> The counter argument is that the raw clock is abstracting the
>>> underlying hardware so folks who would have used the TSC directly can
>>> now use the raw clock and have a generic abstracted hardware-counter
>>> interface. So userland shouldn't really be worried about the
>>> occasional injections made since they shouldn't be trying to
>>> re-generate the abstraction from the hardware themselves.  <--
>>> Remember this point as we move to the next comment:)
>>> > The end-result is 'correct' as much correct it is in relation to real
>>> > nanoseconds. :)
>>> >
>>> >> I guess I'd want to understand more of the use here and the need to
>>> >> tie the raw clock back to the hardware counter it abstracts.
>>> >
>>> > The problem there is ART which is distributed to PCIe devices and ART time
>>> > stamps are exposed in various ways. ART has a fixed ratio vs. TSC so there
>>> > is a reasonable expectation that MONOTONIC_RAW is accurate.
>>> Which is maybe sort of my issue here. The raw clock provided a
>>> abstraction away from the hardware for generic usage, but then its
>>> being re-used with other un-abstracted hardware references. So unless
>>> they use the same method of transformation, there will be problems (of
>>> varying degree).
>> OTOH. If people use the CPUID provided frequency information and the TSC
>> from userspace then they get different results which is contrary to the
>> goal of providing them an abstracted way of doing it.
> But that's my point. If they are pulling time values from the hardware
> directly that's unabstracted. I'm not sure its smart to be comparing
> the abstracted and unabstracted time stamps if your worried about
> precision. They are sort of two separate (though similar) time
> domains.
>>> We might be able to reduce the degree in this case, but I worry the
>>> extra complexity may only cause problems for others.
>> Is it really that complex to add a fixed correction value periodically?
>> I don't think so and it should just work for any clocksource which is
>> exposed this way. Famous last words .....
> I'm not saying that the code is overly complex (at least compared to
> the rest of the timekeeping code :), but just how the accumulation is
> done is less-trivial. So if someone else is trying to mimic the
> abstracted time with unabstracted hardware values (again, not
> something I reccomend, but that's sort of the usage case pushing
> this), they need to use a similar method that is slightly more
> complicated (or use slower math). Its all subtle stuff, but this makes
> something that was relatively very simple (by design) a bit harder to
> explain.

Adding Mirosalv as he's always thoughtful on these sorts of issues.

I spent a little bit of time thinking this out. Unfortunately I don't
think its a simple matter of calculating the granularity error on the
raw clock and adding it in each interval. The other trouble spot is
that the adjusted clocks (monotonic/realtime) are adjusted off of that
raw clock. So they would need to have that error added as well,
otherwise the raw and a otherwise non-adjusted monotonic clock would

However, to be correct, the ntp adjustments made would have to be made
to both the base interval + error, which mucks the math up a fair bit.

Maybe Miroslav will have a better idea here, but otherwise I'll stew
on this a bit more and see what I can come up with.


  reply	other threads:[~2018-10-23 18:31 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
     [not found] <>
2018-10-19 15:25 ` Thomas Gleixner
2018-10-19 18:34   ` John Stultz
2018-10-19 18:39     ` John Stultz
2018-10-19 18:37   ` Thomas Gleixner
2018-10-19 18:48     ` John Stultz
2018-10-19 18:57       ` Thomas Gleixner
2018-10-19 19:21         ` John Stultz
2018-10-19 20:50           ` Thomas Gleixner
2018-10-19 22:36             ` John Stultz
2018-10-23 18:31               ` John Stultz [this message]
2018-10-24 14:51                 ` Miroslav Lichvar
2018-10-24 17:32                   ` Christopher Hall
2018-10-25 11:49                     ` Miroslav Lichvar
2018-11-01 17:41                   ` Thomas Gleixner
2018-11-02 10:26                     ` Miroslav Lichvar
2018-11-02 11:27                       ` Thomas Gleixner
2018-11-01 17:44                 ` Thomas Gleixner
2018-11-01 17:56                   ` John Stultz
2018-11-01 18:03                     ` Thomas Gleixner
2018-11-02 11:20                       ` Miroslav Lichvar
2018-11-02 11:25                         ` Thomas Gleixner
2018-11-02 12:31                           ` Miroslav Lichvar

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:

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to='' \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
    --subject='Re: TSC to Mono-raw Drift' \

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link

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).