> Does the timer patch rely on the CPU timer as an accurate > timekeeper?
I haven't looked at the code in a few weeks (the last time I tried to hunt this down), but I was referring to the fact that with xntp, the incremental adjustments of the timer cause the guest to wake up fairly frequently for checks on timer drift, which effectively negates a lot of the "go to sleep until I have something real to do" goals of the timer patch -- you've just given it something legitmate to do on a fairly periodic basis. The idea of scheduling a ntpdate run periodically is an interesting one. If you're not running Kerberos or other services that depend on stable synchronized clocks to function, that might be a predictable way to limit the amount of drift that occurs w/o the full NTP impact. > But, I'm > thinking that no > matter how Linux wakes up, it would HAVE to use STCKE to have > any hope of > keeping accurate time (without NTP). In effect, STCKE would > replace NTP's > function. I'll have a look. - db
