On Thu, 2008-01-31 at 02:55 +0100, Roman Zippel wrote:
I'm using USER_HZ, because ntp_update_frequency() uses USER_HZ.
And my tests were run at HZ=1000.
I'm not sure I follow how having two separate and totally different
definitions of NTP_INTERVAL_LENGTH is less complicated then my last
patch.
Maybe I'm missing something from your suggestion? Or maybe could you
contribute your suggestion as a patch?
My concern is we state the accumulation interval is X ns long. Then
current_tick_length() is to return (X + ntp_adjustment), so each
accumulation interval we can keep track of the error and adjust our
interval length.
So if ntp_update_frequency() sets tick_length_base to be:
u64 second_length = (u64)(tick_usec * NSEC_PER_USEC * USER_HZ)
<< TICK_LENGTH_SHIFT;
second_length += (s64)CLOCK_TICK_ADJUST << TICK_LENGTH_SHIFT;
second_length += (s64)time_freq
<< (TICK_LENGTH_SHIFT - SHIFT_NSEC);
tick_length_base = second_length;
do_div(tick_length_base, NTP_INTERVAL_FREQ);
The above is basically (X + part of ntp_adjustment)
So I'm trying to calculate the X as:
#define NTP_INTERVAL_LENGTH ((((s64)TICK_USEC*NSEC_PER_USEC*USER_HZ)+CLOCK_TICK_ADJUST)/NTP_INTERVAL_FREQ)
thanks
-john
--