lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Mar]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: Linux 2.6.29-rc6
Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> On Sun, 15 Mar 2009, Jesper Krogh wrote:
>> Linus Torvalds wrote:
>>> Regardless of whether is succeeds or not, it will print out some debug
>>> messages, which will be interesting to see.
>>
>> [ 0.000000] Fast TSC delta=34227730, error=6223+6219=12442
>> [ 0.000000] Fast TSC calibration using PIT
>> [ 0.000000] Detected 2312.045 MHz processor.
>
> Ok. This claims that the error really is smaller than 500ppm (it's about
> 360 ppm). Which is about what we're aiming for (in real life, the actual
> error is about half that - we're just adding up the error terms for
> maximum theoretical error).
>
>> Using "ntpq -c peers" .. the offset steadily grows as time goes.
>>
>> Full dmesg: http://krogh.cc/~jesper/dmesg-linux-2.6.29-rc8-linus1.txt
>>
>> jk@quad11:~$ ntpdc -c kerninfo
>> pll offset: 0.085167 s
>> pll frequency: -18.722 ppm
>> maximum error: 0.137231 s
>> estimated error: 0.008823 s
>> status: 0001 pll
>> pll time constant: 6
>> precision: 1e-06 s
>> frequency tolerance: 500 ppm
>
> Hmm. But now it all seems to _work_, no? Or do you still get time resets?

My conclusion was that I would get a time reset after some time since
the offset just increased as time went by (being reasonably small at the
beginning).

I had it up for around 30 minutes... Should I have tested longer?

I went on to trying Thomas Gleixners patch (which seems to do excactly
the same .. ), I'll write a reply in to that message in a few minutes.

--
Jesper


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-03-15 19:41    [W:0.144 / U:0.160 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site