lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [Mar]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: 11 minute RTC update (was Re: Remove RTC UIP)
    > I think it isn't. Ideally ntpd should open /dev/rtcX and write the
    > time, but I'm not sure if it belongs to it or if a simple
    > hwclock --systohc /dev/rtcX should be used.

    It makes a lot more sense to use hwclock than to duplicate its
    function in ntpd. Besides the downside of having to maintain two
    programs that do the same thing, it creates a difficult interaction
    problem if a user uses both, because hwclock tries to work with the
    systematic drift rate of the clock, and if hwclock is not the only
    thing setting it, it can get all messed up. hwclock contains special
    code today to notice that the kernel is interfering (adjtimex()
    reports that information), but it really would rather not, and I think
    it would be even messier if the interference came from outside the
    kernel.

    I'm not sure ntpd even should be involved with this. It seems to me
    cleaner to keep maintaining of the Linux clock and maintaining of the
    hardware clock separate. On my own system, I simply have cron do a
    hwclock --systohc once a week, independent of what keeps the system
    clock accurate. Some people do it at shutdown time as well. (You
    don't have to set the clock every 11 minutes if you're keeping track
    of systematic drift like hwclock does).

    Concerning migration: ntpd presently tells the kernel to go into 11
    minute mode (I think technically, it tells the kernel that it is
    keeping the system time accurate and based on that information, the
    kernel takes the opportunity to keep the hardware clock accurate as
    well, but I think it's practically equivalent). So that suggests a
    migration path: Step 1: ntpd stops using that flag; Step 2: kernel
    issues warning if someone uses the flag; Step 3: kernel ignores the
    flag. For 1), ntpd issues a warning that nobody's minding the
    hardware clock unless you pass an option telling it to do hwclock
    --systohc or that you're handling the issue and ntpd needn't warn you
    about it. I like the latter better.


    BTW, I am the maintainer of hwclock. This is the first I've heard of
    this discussion, but I have always been a supporter of the kernel
    getting out of the hardware clock maintenance business. What's this
    about multiple RTC's?

    --
    Bryan Henderson Phone 408-621-2000
    San Jose, California
    -
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
    More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
    Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2006-03-29 19:35    [from the cache]
    ©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital Ocean