From: Jonathan Woithe <jwoithe@physics.adelaide.edu.au>
To: johnstul@us.ibm.com (john stultz)
Cc: jwoithe@physics.adelaide.edu.au (Jonathan Woithe),
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: 2.6.14-rt21: slow-running clock
Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2005 13:32:25 +1030 (CST) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <200512080302.jB832PLx008014@sprite.physics.adelaide.edu.au> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1134009933.10613.73.camel@cog.beaverton.ibm.com> from "john stultz" at Dec 07, 2005 06:45:33 PM
> On Thu, 2005-12-08 at 09:24 +1030, Jonathan Woithe wrote:
> > > Odd. I'm not sure why the acpi_pm wasn't chosen by default if it was
> > > available and the TSC fell back to the c3tsc. It might be something in
> > > the -RT tree that's changed that bit. Could you try the following and
> > > see if it doesn't resolve the timekeeping problems you're seeing?
> > >
> > > echo "acpi_pm" > /sys/devices/system/clocksource/clocksource0/current_clocksource
> >
> > Upon executing the above command the system time started behaving correctly
> > once more.
> Ok, something in the -rt patches is probably changing the selection
> order.
Is there any way to change the clock source in a normal 2.6.14 kernel? If
there was I could force the source to c3tsc in that and see if the problem
affects the c3tsc in vanilla kernels.
> > I'm also wondering whether this might be related to one other thing I
> > noticed a week or so back (also reported to the list, but thus far no
> > followups). If I enabled the (new) "High resolution timers" feature (as
> > distinct from HPET), things like /usr/bin/sleep run for far longer than
> > they should irrespective of machine load. For example, "sleep 1" from bash
> > actually delays 38 seconds, not 1 second as expected.
>
> Does disabling the "High resolution timers" feature change the behavior
> all?
I should clarify. Everything I've given you thus far has been with the
"high resolution timers" feature disabled. Two or so weeks ago I tried
enabling it and that's when "sleep 1" took 38 seconds to complete.
Disabling "high resoltion timers" at least made "sleep 1" behave somewhat
saner. I don't know if having the high res timers enabled affects the
accuracy of the system clock however. I'll test this tonight.
> > In other words, c3tsc wasn't there but tsc was. In terms of time accuracy
> > it seemed that with idle=poll the system time was kept accurately in this
> > case as well. I also noted in dmesg output the following:
> >
> > Time: tsc clocksource has been installed.
> >
> > Unlike the normal case (where idle=poll was not specified) there was no
> > mention of a "fallback" to a "C3-safe tsc".
>
> Thats very interesting that idle=poll worked around the issue. More
> digging will be necessary.
It possibly suggests that it's the c3tsc timer which is faulty as opposed to
the tsc timer (or maybe it's just a mode thing). Note that even with
idle=poll it was the tsc timer (instead of the acpi_pm timer) which was
selected, so "idle=poll" doesn't work around the timer selection issue. It
seems that there might be two separate problems: timer source selection and
c3tsc accuracy. Whether they are both present in vanilla 2.6.14 (or simply
masked due to selection of acpi_pm) is not clear.
Regards
jonathan
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2005-12-08 3:06 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2005-12-05 6:26 Jonathan Woithe
2005-12-05 19:42 ` john stultz
2005-12-07 3:39 ` Jonathan Woithe
2005-12-07 4:01 ` john stultz
2005-12-07 4:25 ` Jonathan Woithe
2005-12-07 22:54 ` Jonathan Woithe
2005-12-08 2:45 ` john stultz
2005-12-08 3:02 ` Jonathan Woithe [this message]
2005-12-08 3:22 ` john stultz
2005-12-08 4:11 ` Jonathan Woithe
2005-12-09 0:19 ` Jonathan Woithe
2005-12-09 2:11 ` john stultz
2005-12-09 2:19 ` Jonathan Woithe
2005-12-13 1:56 ` john stultz
2005-12-14 1:22 ` Jonathan Woithe
2005-12-15 1:41 ` john stultz
2005-12-15 3:18 ` Jonathan Woithe
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=200512080302.jB832PLx008014@sprite.physics.adelaide.edu.au \
--to=jwoithe@physics.adelaide.edu.au \
--cc=johnstul@us.ibm.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®