On Tue, 19 Dec 2006 17:54:18 -0800 john stultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-12-19 at 17:32 -0800, john stultz wrote: > > On Wed, 2006-12-13 at 21:40 +0100, Roman Zippel wrote: > > > On Wed, 13 Dec 2006, john stultz wrote: > > > > > You don't have to introduce anything new, it's tick_length that > > > > > changes > > > > > and HZ that becomes a variable in this function. > > > > > > > > So, forgive me for rehashing this, but it seems we're cross talking > > > > again. The context here is the dynticks code. Where HZ doesn't change, > > > > but we get interrupts at much reduced rates. > > > > > > I know and all you have to change in the ntp and some related code is to > > > replace HZ there with a variable, thus make it changable, so you can > > > increase the update interval (i.e. it becomes 1s/hz instead of 1s/HZ). > > > > Untested patch below. Does this vibe better with you are suggesting? > > And here would be the follow on patch (again *untested*) for > CONFIG_NO_HZ slowing the time accumulation down to once per second. I'm still awaiting a final-looking version of this patch, fyi. I don't understand whether this is a theoretical might-happen thing, or if NTP problems have actually been observed in the field? Either way, I'm sure the final changelog will clear that up ;) - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
