lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Jun]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [GIT pull] ntp updates for 2.6.31

* Miroslav Lichvar <mlichvar@redhat.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 11:57:45AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > > Wouldnt the goal be to calibrate as fast as possible? (Without
> > > > any bad oscillation)
> > >
> > > Not really. It depends on how noisy is the input signal. On an
> > > idle LAN the jitter is just few microseconds, but over internet it
> > > easily reaches miliseconds. Over a certain point faster PLL will
> > > just make things worse.
> >
> > That is what i called 'bad oscillation' - a 'too fast' PLL that
> > over-compensates and does not converge well enough.
> >
> > Is there a claim that this change causes that? (John's testing
> > suggested that there's no such effect)
>
> I think John's tests were done on LAN and in an environment with
> sudden temperature changes. This is the case where frequency
> variations strongly dominate the noise and faster PLL performs
> better.

I'd also expect this to be quite similar to most everyday Linux
uses.

> On the opposite side is an idle machine in a room with stable
> temperature syncing over wireless or dial-up. I don't have access
> to such machine, but in simulations (noise with exponential
> distribution) I see that offset RMS doubles when the time constant
> is decreased by 2.

The thing is, an idle machine in a room with stable temperature is
in a good position anyway to have stable time, right? We should
rather care about the common-case of temperature variations,
reboots, etc.

That is where NTP _helps the most_ - as the physical environment is
very entropy laden to begin with.

> Maybe for most of the users the change would be an improvement. I
> don't have any statistics to back it up or claim otherwise.
> However, if the constant needs to be adjusted, it's better to do
> it in NTP.
>
> > > PLL is mainly about handling the signal noise, frequency adjusting
> > > is secondary. When the noise is very low or the update interval is
> > > long enough, the frequency variations caused by temperature
> > > changes will dominate the signal noise and this is where FLL
> > > should kick in.
> > >
> > > The PLL/FLL switching is controlled by update interval. Ideally it
> > > would be adaptive, but NTP is not that sophisticated. By default,
> > > FLL is enabled when the interval is longer than 2048 seconds. This
> > > is of course not the optimal value for all systems.
> > >
> > > Unfortunately in kernel it can be configured only to 2048 or 256
> > > and NTP never uses the shorter one. The NTP daemon has its own
> > > loop which can be used instead and it allows to use arbitrary
> > > values though.
> >
> > How about going towards the ideal, adaptive design, to which ntpd
> > passes in time samples and which observes noise and converges as
> > quickly as possible (given the noise level) and stays stable once
> > there? I guess we need extensions to the NTP syscall for that.
>
> Not sure how hard that would be. The ntp-hackers list is a better
> place to discuss such modifications.
>
> Other NTP clients don't have to use the PLL interface. For
> example, chrony uses only the SINGLESHOT mode and sets the
> frequency directly. It has an adaptive model using linear
> regression, it converges really fast and in my tests performs
> better than NTP.

That's good. Could this be integrated into the kernel, for even
better results?

> > The NTP code in kernel/time/ntp.c is now reasonably clean for
> > efforts like that.
> >
> > It would also pave the way to properly support PPS devices in
> > the kernel. Would you be interested in things like this?
>
> I'm not very familiar with the PPS API, is there something wrong
> with it?

The PPS patches i've seen just export IRQ timestamps to user-space.

That is not very robust in my opinion when it comes to do time
approximations - to get quick, low-latency action and precise
measurements it's best to keep the critical path as short as
possible, and within a single source code repository: i.e. within
the kernel.

There's little policy really, other than setting some general
parameters. NTPd can still provide the raw _network time_
timestamps, as that is probably best fetched by user-space and fed
to the kernel.

Ingo


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-06-23 15:39    [W:0.079 / U:1.056 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site