linuxptp-devel

Re: [Linuxptp-devel] [PATCH v3 5/5] clockcheck: Increase minimum interval.

[Keller, J. E <jac...@in...>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Miroslav Lichvar <mli...@re...>
> Sent: Monday, May 31, 2021 2:08 AM
> To: lin...@li...
> Subject: [Linuxptp-devel] [PATCH v3 5/5] clockcheck: Increase minimum interval.
> 
> Increase the minimum check interval to 1 second to measure the frequency
> offset more accurately and with default configuration make false
> positives less likely due to a heavily overloaded system.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Miroslav Lichvar <mli...@re...>

So this is a change from 10 times a second to once a second? Seems ok to me.

Reviewed-by: Jacob Keller <jac...@in...>

Thanks,
Jake



> ---
>  clockcheck.c | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/clockcheck.c b/clockcheck.c
> index d0b4714..f0141be 100644
> --- a/clockcheck.c
> +++ b/clockcheck.c
> @@ -23,7 +23,7 @@
>  #include "clockcheck.h"
>  #include "print.h"
> 
> -#define CHECK_MIN_INTERVAL 100000000
> +#define CHECK_MIN_INTERVAL 1000000000
>  #define CHECK_MAX_FREQ 900000000
> 
>  struct clockcheck {
> --
> 2.26.3
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Linuxptp-devel mailing list
> Lin...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linuxptp-devel

Re: [Linuxptp-devel] [PATCH v3 5/5] clockcheck: Increase minimum interval.

[Amar S. <asu...@al...>]

Hi Miroslav,

Please find our response inline.

Thanks,
Amar B S

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Miroslav Lichvar [mailto:mli...@re...]
> Sent: 31 May 2021 14:38
> To: lin...@li...
> Subject: [Linuxptp-devel] [PATCH v3 5/5] clockcheck: Increase minimum interval.
> 
> CAUTION: This email originated from outside of Altiostar. Do not click on links
> or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and you are sure the
> content is safe. You will never be asked to reset your Altiostar password via
> email.
> 
> 
> Increase the minimum check interval to 1 second to measure the frequency
> offset more accurately and with default configuration make false positives less
> likely due to a heavily overloaded system.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Miroslav Lichvar <mli...@re...>
> ---
>  clockcheck.c | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/clockcheck.c b/clockcheck.c index d0b4714..f0141be 100644
> --- a/clockcheck.c
> +++ b/clockcheck.c
> @@ -23,7 +23,7 @@
>  #include "clockcheck.h"
>  #include "print.h"
> 
> -#define CHECK_MIN_INTERVAL 100000000
> +#define CHECK_MIN_INTERVAL 1000000000
>  #define CHECK_MAX_FREQ 900000000

With the proposed patch/change, didn't see the clock check jump issue again in our setup. 
We are seeing few other observations which needs further analysis and see if it has any relevance to the patch. 
Need some time to conclude on this

> 
>  struct clockcheck {
> --
> 2.26.3
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Linuxptp-devel mailing list
> Lin...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linuxptp-devel

Re: [Linuxptp-devel] [PATCH v3 5/5] clockcheck: Increase minimum interval.

[Amar S. <asu...@al...>]

Hi Miroslav,

We were following one issue, which we are now sure that it is not because of the changes submitted.
Your changes are working fine for us and we are not seeing any clock check prints.

Thanks,
Amar B S

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Amar Subramanyam
> Sent: 03 June 2021 18:47
> To: 'Miroslav Lichvar' <mli...@re...>; linuxptp-
> de...@li...
> Subject: RE: [Linuxptp-devel] [PATCH v3 5/5] clockcheck: Increase minimum
> interval.
> 
> Hi Miroslav,
> 
> Please find our response inline.
> 
> Thanks,
> Amar B S
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Miroslav Lichvar [mailto:mli...@re...]
> > Sent: 31 May 2021 14:38
> > To: lin...@li...
> > Subject: [Linuxptp-devel] [PATCH v3 5/5] clockcheck: Increase minimum
> interval.
> >
> > CAUTION: This email originated from outside of Altiostar. Do not click
> > on links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and you
> > are sure the content is safe. You will never be asked to reset your
> > Altiostar password via email.
> >
> >
> > Increase the minimum check interval to 1 second to measure the
> > frequency offset more accurately and with default configuration make
> > false positives less likely due to a heavily overloaded system.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Miroslav Lichvar <mli...@re...>
> > ---
> >  clockcheck.c | 2 +-
> >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/clockcheck.c b/clockcheck.c index d0b4714..f0141be 100644
> > --- a/clockcheck.c
> > +++ b/clockcheck.c
> > @@ -23,7 +23,7 @@
> >  #include "clockcheck.h"
> >  #include "print.h"
> >
> > -#define CHECK_MIN_INTERVAL 100000000
> > +#define CHECK_MIN_INTERVAL 1000000000
> >  #define CHECK_MAX_FREQ 900000000
> 
> With the proposed patch/change, didn't see the clock check jump issue again in
> our setup.
> We are seeing few other observations which needs further analysis and see if it
> has any relevance to the patch.
> Need some time to conclude on this
> 
> >
> >  struct clockcheck {
> > --
> > 2.26.3
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Linuxptp-devel mailing list
> > Lin...@li...
> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linuxptp-devel

Re: [Linuxptp-devel] [PATCH v3 0/5] Fixes for sanity clock check

[Richard C. <ric...@gm...>]

On Mon, May 31, 2021 at 11:07:51AM +0200, Miroslav Lichvar wrote:
> v3
> - added patch to avoid slow renewal of raw sockets
> - added patch to increase the minimum check interval
> 
> v2
> - improved commit message
> - added missing NULL check
> 
> These patches make the clock check more reliable in several different
> cases.
> 
> The first patch is not strictly related to the clock check, e.g. it also
> fixes the path delay after switching the slave port.
> 
> Miroslav Lichvar (5):
>   clock: Reset state when switching port with same best clock.
>   clock: Reset clock check on best clock/port change.
>   port: Don't check timestamps from non-slave ports.
>   port: Don't renew raw transport.
>   clockcheck: Increase minimum interval.

Series applied.

Thanks,
Richard