On Fri, 2005年07月29日 at 19:29 +0100, Keir Fraser wrote:
> On 29 Jul 2005, at 19:17, Michael Hohnbaum wrote:
>
> > The TSC is not a reliable time source. There is no guarantee of
> > synchronization between multiple CPUs. Also note that the TSC will
> > stop in ACPI C3 mode. Probably not an issue for Xen today, but could
> > be in the future, especially as servers start doing more power
> > management. The HPET is preferable for a time source on systems
> > that this is available on.
>
> We're not relying on TSC synchronisation between CPUs. They can run at 
> different frequencies, stop in deep sleep, and so on. But we *do* want 
> the frequency of each one to be as stable as possible. I'd expect to 
> get <1ppm stability from a crystal source at constant temperature, no 
> problem.
Not being a hardware expert, terminology and details might be a bit off,
but my understanding is that yes, this level of instability from the 
hardware time source (not necessarily a crystal) is not uncommon. HPET
time source tends to be more reliable (stable) than the TSC. There
tend to be many factors that affect the accuracy of the TSC, most of
which I do not grok.
Much of the complexity in the Linux time subsystem is there to deal with
the inadequacy of hardware time sources.
 Michael
>
> -- Keir
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Xen-devel mailing list
> Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel 
>
-- 
Michael Hohnbaum 503 578 5486
hohnbaum@xxxxxxxxxx t/l 775 5486
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel