On Wednesday 14 April 2010 02:12:06 Kim B. Heino wrote:
Interesting indeed, your libc reads /etc/config/TZ every time.
Yeah, uClibc does that. It's not as bad as it seems because both the dentry
and the page stay in cache. (The uClibc TZ is a tiny text file, one line,
generally about 6
I fixed syncing code so that it widens sync window very fast.
But then I disabled it anyway, it's too big and in my testing,
RTC isn't setting time with ~0.5sec precision anyway (!!!).
Fixed in git, will be in 1.16.2
--
vda
Couple remarks:
1. Why would we care to synchronize time in
2. Linux kernel will attempt to update RTC at 500ms mark and
not at a second mark. Do they known something better?
Perhaps they thought this minimizes average error in setting
RTC time.
Perhaps most RTC-reading ends up on a 1-second mark,
and thus moving the writing avoids conflicts that
at
Em 15-04-2010 04:11, Denys Vlasenko escreveu:
2. Linux kernel will attempt to update RTC at 500ms mark and
not at a second mark. Do they known something better?
Hmm, I didn't know that.
Perhaps they thought this minimizes average error in setting
RTC time.
This makes sense. One problem in
On Thursday 15 April 2010 10:55:47 Cathey, Jim wrote:
2. Linux kernel will attempt to update RTC at 500ms mark and
not at a second mark. Do they known something better?
Perhaps they thought this minimizes average error in setting
RTC time.
Perhaps most RTC-reading ends up on a 1-second
BusyBox 1.16.1 on a small armv4tl system:
$ time hwclock -w
real0m 24.34s
Interesting.
BusyBox v1.17.0.git
armv5teb
~ # strace hwclock -w
...
open(/etc/config/TZ, O_RDONLY)= 4
read(4, EST-10\n, 68) = 7
read(4, , 61) = 0
On Wednesday 14 April 2010 01:01:08 Steve Bennett wrote:
On 13/04/2010, at 11:09 AM, Rob Landley wrote:
On Tuesday 13 April 2010 10:08:56 Kim B. Heino wrote:
BusyBox 1.16.1 on a small armv4tl system:
$ time hwclock -w
real0m 24.34s
user0m 0.00s
sys 0m 0.00s
$ time
On Wednesday 14 April 2010 01:01:08 Steve Bennett wrote:
On 13/04/2010, at 11:09 AM, Rob Landley wrote:
On Tuesday 13 April 2010 10:08:56 Kim B. Heino wrote:
BusyBox 1.16.1 on a small armv4tl system:
$ time hwclock -w
real0m 24.34s
user0m 0.00s
sys 0m 0.00s
$ time hwclock -w
On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 8:23 AM, Piotr Grudzinski pi...@powersmiths.com wrote:
On Wednesday 14 April 2010 01:01:08 Steve Bennett wrote:
On 13/04/2010, at 11:09 AM, Rob Landley wrote:
On Tuesday 13 April 2010 10:08:56 Kim B. Heino wrote:
BusyBox 1.16.1 on a small armv4tl system:
$ time
On Wednesday 14 April 2010 01:01:08 Steve Bennett wrote:
On 13/04/2010, at 11:09 AM, Rob Landley wrote:
On Tuesday 13 April 2010 10:08:56 Kim B. Heino wrote:
BusyBox 1.16.1 on a small armv4tl system:
$ time hwclock -w
real 0m 24.34s
user 0m 0.00s
sys 0m 0.00s
$ time hwclock -w
real 0m
BusyBox 1.16.1 on a small armv4tl system:
$ time hwclock -w
real0m 24.34s
user0m 0.00s
sys 0m 0.00s
$ time hwclock -w
real0m 24.07s
user0m 0.01s
sys 0m 0.00s
$ time hwclock -w
real0m 24.20s
user0m 0.00s
sys 0m 0.00s
rem_usec seems to be about 996600 after
11 matches
Mail list logo
