Joel,
On Mon, Dec 13 2021 at 06:39, Joel Daniels wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Dec 2021 14:36 +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> Can you please verify that the problem persists with NTP enabled and
>> synchronized?
>
> Yes, I just verified that the problem still exists while
> synchronized to NTP.
...
> $ chronyc tracking && echo && chronyc sources
> [...]
> Ref time (UTC) : Mon Dec 13 13:30:52 2021
> System time : 5.597892284 seconds fast of NTP time
thanks for making sure that this is really a RTC issue on that machine.
> The "if" branch does not apply as I have no clock sources flagged as
> CLOCK_SOURCE_SUSPEND_NONSTOP but the "else if" branch does apply.
Which CPU is in that box?
> The kernel seems to believe that the time spent sleeping is exactly
> the difference of two calls to read_persistent_clock64 with no option
> to adjust for persistent clock drift.
The kernel does not believe. It relies on the accuracy of the CMOS clock
which is usually pretty good.
> I would like to provide a way for user space to inform the kernel
> that the persistent clock drifts so it can make a corresponding
> adjustment when resuming from a long suspend period.
>
> In my use case it would be enough for me to set this parameter on
> boot. In use cases with continuous network access, NTP daemons
> could be enhanced to periodically update this parameter with the
> daemon's best estimate of the persistent clock drift.
That needs some thought. The RTC people (cc'ed now) might have opionions
on that.
Thanks,
tglx
