Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 15 Mar 2009 19:38:37 +0100 | From | Jesper Krogh <> | Subject | Re: 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
| |