[lkml]   [2004]   [Dec]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [RFC] New timeofday proposal (v.A1)
On Thu, 2004-12-09 at 08:57 +0100, Ulrich Windl wrote:
> On 8 Dec 2004 at 15:36, john stultz wrote:
> [...]
> > Take a look at the adjtimex man page as well as the ntp.c file from the
> > timeofday core patch. There are number of different types of adjustments
> > that are made, possibly at the same time. Briefly, they are (to my
> > understanding - I'm going off my notes from awhile ago):
> > o tick adjustments
> > how much time should pass in a _user_ tick
> tick adjustments are considered obsolete, because if a lcok implementation (or
> hardware) is severly broken, users should reject using that stuff. Meaning: tick
> adjustments are ment to be set once in the life of a computer system. No
> continuous tuning.
> > o frequency adjustments
> > long term adjustment to correct for constant drift),
> Actually, you are compensating for a "tick problem" on a smaller scale (constant
> part), and variations caused by temperature, voltage, and others (variable part).
> > o offset adjustments
> > additional ppm adjustment to correct for current offset from the ntp
> > server
> > o single shot offset adjustments
> > old style adjtime functionality
> >
> > Tick, frequency and offset adjustments can be precalculated and summed
> > to a single ppm adjustment. This is similar to the style of adjustment
> > you propose directly onto the time source frequency values.
> >
> > However, there is also this short term single shot adjustments. These
> > adjustments are made by applying the MAX_SINGLESHOT_ADJ (500ppm) scaling
> > for an amount of time (offset_len) which would compensate for the
> > offset. This style is difficult because we cannot precompute it and
> > apply it to an entire tick. Instead it needs to be applied for just a
> > specific amount of time which may be only a fraction of a tick. When we
> Yes, that's the "precise" variant of implementing it. Poor implementations are
> just accurate to one tick.

Thanks for your knowledgeable clarifications. Its good to know someone
out there deeply understands this stuff more then at a "this is what the
code is doing, and I have my own interpretation as to why" level. :)

thanks again,

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 14:08    [W:0.059 / U:3.184 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site