Linux HZ free ntp - NTP

This is a discussion on Linux HZ free ntp - NTP ; Hmm, I don't know if this is of interest to anyone here: ( afaiu there is developement for Linux to loose the regular timertick ) uwe from lwn.net: http://lwn.net/Articles/213878/ Patch: HZ free ntp On Wed, 2006-12-06 at 15:33 +0100, Roman ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 3 of 3

Thread: Linux HZ free ntp

  1. Linux HZ free ntp

    Hmm,
    I don't know if this is of interest to anyone here:
    ( afaiu there is developement for Linux to loose the regular timertick )

    uwe

    from lwn.net:
    http://lwn.net/Articles/213878/

    Patch: HZ free ntp

    On Wed, 2006-12-06 at 15:33 +0100, Roman Zippel wrote:
    > On Wed, 6 Dec 2006, Ingo Molnar wrote:
    > > i disagree with you and it's pretty low-impact anyway. There's still
    > > quite many HZ/tick assumptions all around the time code (NTP being one
    > > example), we'll deal with those via other patches.

    >
    > Why do you pick on the NTP code? That's actually one of the places where
    > assumptions about HZ are largely gone. NTP state is updated incrementally
    > and this won't change, but the update frequency can now be easily
    > disconnected from HZ.


    Hey Roman,
    Here's my rough first attempt at doing so. I'd not call it easy, but
    maybe you have some suggestions for a simpler way?

    Basically INTERVAL_LENGTH_NSEC defines the NTP interval length that the
    time code will use to accumulate with. In this patch I've pushed it out
    to a full second, but it could be set via config (NSEC_PER_SEC/HZ for
    regular systems, something larger for systems using dynticks).

    Thoughts?

    -john

  2. Re: Linux HZ free ntp

    I'll check out the link in a little while.

    If they are suggesting patches to ntp it will be a whole lot more productive
    if they work with us as opposed to maintaining a separate set of patches.

    H

  3. Re: Linux HZ free ntp

    I see they are discussing kernel patches only.

    H

+ Reply to Thread