Are we interested in supporting low resolution system clocks?

Gary E. Miller gem at
Wed Jun 7 00:27:27 UTC 2017

Yo Hal!

On Tue, 06 Jun 2017 17:23:56 -0700
Hal Murray <hmurray at> wrote:

> > I have run tests removing the fuzz code.  Never found any change
> > with or without the clock fuzz.  I was too scared to remove it.  
> It's scattered all over the place so I'm impressed if you really
> removed it all.

I did not remove it, I just set the fuzz to zero.  :-)

> The code that I was looking at in ntp_packetstamp had a run time test.
>         if (sys_tick > measured_tick && sys_tick > S_PER_NS) {
> and sys_tick == measured_tick on one sample system so the next few
> lines were never executed.

But is i don't think sys_tick == measured_tick is always rtue.

> If Eric and Mark agree that we don't need to support big tick OSes,
> I'll look harder at trying to figure out what it does to see if there
> is anything useful we need to save.

The fuzz borders on a religious topic, cloaked in various statistical
arguments.  You'll need extra-ordinary proof.

Gary E. Miller Rellim 109 NW Wilmington Ave., Suite E, Bend, OR 97703
	gem at  Tel:+1 541 382 8588

	    Veritas liberabit vos. -- Quid est veritas?
    "If you can’t measure it, you can’t improve it." - Lord Kelvin
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 488 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <>

More information about the devel mailing list