On Sun, Aug 27, 2017 at 09:45:52PM -0700, Mike Larkin wrote: > On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 08:02:35AM +0800, Adam Steen wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 12:43:44PM +0200, Mike Belopuhov wrote: > > > On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 00:40 -0700, Mike Larkin wrote: > > > > On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 12:39:33PM +0800, Adam Steen wrote: > > > > > On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 2:35 AM, Mike Larkin <mlar...@azathoth.net> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 09:29:15PM +0800, Adam Steen wrote: > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Thank you Mike on the feedback on the last patch, please see the > > > > > >> diff > > > > > >> below, update with your input and style(9) > > > > > >> > > > > > >> I have continued to use tsc as my timecounter and > > > > > >> /var/db/ntpd.driff > > > > > >> has stayed under 10. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> cat /var/db/ntpd.drift > > > > > >> 6.665 > > > > > >> > > > > > >> ntpctl -s all > > > > > >> 4/4 peers valid, constraint offset -1s, clock synced, stratum 3 > > > > > >> > > > > > >> peer > > > > > >> wt tl st next poll offset delay jitter > > > > > >> 144.48.166.166 from pool pool.ntp.org > > > > > >> 1 10 2 4s 32s -3.159ms 87.723ms 10.389ms > > > > > >> 13.55.50.68 from pool pool.ntp.org > > > > > >> 1 10 3 11s 32s -3.433ms 86.053ms 18.095ms > > > > > >> 14.202.204.182 from pool pool.ntp.org > > > > > >> 1 10 1 14s 32s 1.486ms 86.545ms 16.483ms > > > > > >> 27.124.125.250 from pool pool.ntp.org > > > > > >> * 1 10 2 12s 30s -10.275ms 54.156ms 70.389ms > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Cheers > > > > > >> Adam > > > > > > > > > > > > IIRC you have an x220, right? > > > > > > > > > > > > If so, could you try letting the clock run for a bit (while using > > > > > > tsc > > > > > > timecounter selection) after apm -L to drop the speed? (make sure > > > > > > apm shows that it dropped). > > > > > > > > > > > > Even though my x230 supposedly has a constant/invar TSC (according > > > > > > to > > > > > > cpuid), the TSC drops from 2.5GHz to 1.2GHz when apm -L runs, which > > > > > > causes time to run too slowly when tsc is selected there. > > > > > > > > > > > > -ml > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, x220 > > > > > (bios: LENOVO version "8DET69WW (1.39 )" date 07/18/2013) > > > > > (cpu: Intel(R) Core(TM) i5-2520M CPU @ 2.50GHz, 2491.91 MHz) > > > > > > > > > > I took some measurements to before starting the test. > > > > > > > > > > note: the laptop has been up for a few days with apm -A set via > > > > > rc.conf.local > > > > > and sysctl kern.timecounter.hardware as tsc via sysctl.conf and mostly > > > > > idle. > > > > > > > > > > cat /var/db/ntpd.drift > > > > > 6.459 > > > > > > > > > > apm -v > > > > > Battery state: high, 100% remaining, unknown life estimate > > > > > A/C adapter state: connected > > > > > Performance adjustment mode: auto (800 MHz) > > > > > > > > > > 6 hours ago i ran apm -L, verified it was running slowly (800 MHz), > > > > > and got the following results > > > > > > > > > > The clock appears correct (comparing to other computers) > > > > > > > > > > apm -v > > > > > Battery state: high, 100% remaining, unknown life estimate > > > > > A/C adapter state: connected > > > > > Performance adjustment mode: manual (800 MHz) > > > > > > > > > > cat /var/db/ntpd.drift > > > > > 6.385 > > > > > > > > > > ntpctl -s all > > > > > 4/4 peers valid, constraint offset 0s, clock synced, stratum 4 > > > > > > > > > > peer > > > > > wt tl st next poll offset delay jitter > > > > > 203.23.237.200 from pool pool.ntp.org > > > > > 1 10 2 153s 1505s -25.546ms 73.450ms 2.644ms > > > > > 203.114.73.24 from pool pool.ntp.org > > > > > 1 10 2 253s 1560s -1.042ms 75.133ms 0.752ms > > > > > 192.189.54.33 from pool pool.ntp.org > > > > > * 1 10 2 204s 1558s 31.644ms 70.910ms 3.388ms > > > > > 54.252.165.245 from pool pool.ntp.org > > > > > 1 10 2 238s 1518s 0.146ms 73.005ms 2.025ms > > > > > > > > > > I will leave the laptop in lower power mode over the weekend and see > > > > > what happens. > > > > > > > > > > > > > No need, I think you've convinced me that it works :) > > > > > > But does it actually work on x230 as well? I'm surprised to learn > > > that you've observed TSC frequency change on Ivy Bridge. I was > > > under impression that everything since at least Sandy Bridge (x220) > > > has constant and invariant TSC as advertised. > > > > > > Adam, I've readjusted and simplified your diff a bit. The biggest > > > change is that we can select the reference tc based on it's quality > > > so there's no need to have acpitimer and acpihpet specific functions > > > and variables. > > > > > > There's one big thing missing here: increasing the timecounter > > > quality so that OS can pick it. Something like this: > > > > > > https://github.com/mbelop/src/commit/99d6ef3ae95bbd8ea93c27e0425eb65e5a3359a1 > > > > > > I'd say we should try getting this in after 6.3 unlock unless there > > > are objections. Further cleanup and testing is welcome of course. > > > > > > > Hi all > > > > I wanted to post the complicated patch, along with Mike's qaulity > > changes for completeness sake, see the diff below. > > > > I have been running this since Saturday morning with no > > problems. > > > > Cheers > > Adam > > > > This diff works fine on the x230. And although there is no hpet inside > vmm/vmd, if you pick tsc anyway, it seems to have less time drift than > the 8254/PIT. So, that's good. It's not perfect but it's better. > > mikeb, do you want to get this in? the diff reads ok to me. > > -ml >
Meh didn't read your earlier comments. Yes, after unlock is better. -ml
