[lkml]   [2007]   [Mar]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Is the clockevent resolution fine-grained enough?
On Fri, 02 Mar 2007, Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
> I'm afraid you didn't quite understand what I was getting at. Say the
> user programs the frequency to be 109,000 Hz. That means a nominal clock
> interval of ~9174.3119 ns. Now the clockevent interface forces me to
> round it down to 9174 ns. That means the clock interrupts fall behind
> with respect to the other parts in the system that implement 109,000 Hz
> much more to the letter. The error grows by 34 µs every second so that
> after 8 hours, we are lagging by a whole second.

Shouldn't you switch to a design where these errors become jitter instead of

"One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring
them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond
where the shadows lie." -- The Silicon Valley Tarot
Henrique Holschuh
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: 2007-03-02 22:07    [W:0.049 / U:2.024 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site