Re: [PATCH 0/5] timekeeping: Reduce magnitude of ntp_error

[David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3729 bytes --]

On Thu, 2026-10-01 at 21:21 +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
> The timekeeper's ntp_error variable tracks the delta between the ideal
> time that the kernel *should* be reporting as CLOCK_REALTIME, and the
> time that is *actually* being reported.
> 
> A previous patch series in v7.3, up to commit 794ddd6e15cf ("ntp:
> Remove tick_length_base, use tick_length directly"), fixed *errors* in
> the accounting of ntp_error — cases where the reported time would
> diverge from the ideal time *without* the divergence being correctly
> tracked in ntp_error for subsequent compensation.
> 
> This series is the next step: it reduces the magnitude of the
> excursions which are (now) *correctly* tracked in ntp_error.
> 
> The ntp_error mechanism works fine when it remains close to zero. The
> actual clock is steered back towards the ideal by a single ±1
> dithering of the per-cycle 'mult' period, changing between high and
> low each time ntp_error crosses zero.
> 
> This doesn't work as well when the value of ntp_error gets higher. In
> some cases, 83µs of ntp_error was seen. Draining that through the mult
> ±1 dithering, at typically less than 1ns/s, could take days. And while
> it does, the precision of the frequency that can be effected by the
> kernel's timekeeping is limited by the integer quantisation, because
> it's permanently biased to either mult or mult+1 according to the
> direction of the persistent ntp_error, and frequencies between the two
> values cannot be achieved by the normal dithering. On top of which,
> chrony was attempting to discipline the *reported* clock, even as
> the kernel was attempting to steer it as hard as it could (albeit
> not very hard) back to the kernel's ideal.
> 
> There are two cases where during frequency/phase adjustment, the
> change was effectively applied to the 'ideal' vs 'actual' rate at
> different moments in time. This accounting for this in ntp_error was
> self-consistent, but the better answer is for them to be conceptually
> applied at the same moment, without contributing anything to ntp_error
> at all.
> 
> While the timekeeping code is applying a phase correction, that
> applies an additional bias to the per-cycle 'mult' values. If a
> tickless kernel goes idle while this skew is being applied, it can
> continue to apply that bias *long* after it was intended to finish,
> overshooting the intended phase correction (by 500µs/s in the case of
> adjtime). Fix this in timekeeping_max_deferment() by requesting a
> wakeup at the top of the next second while phase skew is being
> applied. (NB: Only for the core timekeeper, not aux clocks which
> remain as they were).
> 
> Finally, if ntp_error ever does get excessive, we can deliberately
> apply a phase skew to return it to zero faster than the normal
> dithering would permit. An equivalent mechanism was removed in commit
> dc491596f639 ("timekeeping: Rework frequency adjustments to work
> better w/ nohz") but especially with the timekeeping_max_deferment()
> change mentioned above, this now works effectively even with (and
> in fact especially with) tickless idle. But again only for the core
> timekeeper... unless we want to wake for aux clocks too?
> 
> Tests running at https://david.woodhou.se/ntptest-virt/ on baseline
> vs. patched kernels, both tickless and periodic. The effect is seen
> most clearly on the tickless kernel, where the baseline experiences
> much higher jitter around corrections that should be smooth.

Ping? Patches 1-4 of this should be ready to merge now.

So is number 5 as far as I'm concerned, but I'm happy to entertain
further discussion if anyone has an opinion they want to share.

[-- Attachment #2: smime.p7s --]
[-- Type: application/pkcs7-signature, Size: 6179 bytes --]