One of these things (CONFIG_HZ) is not like the others..

[John Stultz]

On 01/28/2013 10:43 PM, Santosh Shilimkar wrote:
> 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. 

Ahh.. Ok. Thanks for the clarification. After a one time sync, ~774ppb 
drift is surprisingly good!


> 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.

Yea, this is also great drift wise (but its not surprising, as both 
cases we're keeping time off of the same clocksource, and HZ shouldn't 
come into play). But its good to have the timekeeping side validated.

thanks
-john