[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2016 02:27:13 +0100
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
To: John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>
Cc: Chen Yu <yu.c.chen@...el.com>,
Linux PM list <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
"x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"rtc-linux@...glegroups.com" <rtc-linux@...glegroups.com>,
Xunlei Pang <xlpang@...hat.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH][RFC v7] timekeeping: Ignore the bogus sleep time if pm_trace is enabled
On Thursday, November 10, 2016 10:26:09 AM John Stultz wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 9, 2016 at 8:55 PM, Chen Yu <yu.c.chen@...el.com> wrote:
> > Previously we encountered some memory overflow issues due to
> > the bogus sleep time brought by inconsistent rtc, which is
> > triggered when pm_trace is enabled, and we have fixed it
> > in recent kernel. However it's improper in the first place
> > to call __timekeeping_inject_sleeptime() in case that pm_trace
> > is enabled simply because that "hash" time value will wreckage
> > the timekeeping subsystem.
> >
> > This patch is originally written by Thomas, which would bypass
> > the bogus rtc interval when pm_trace is enabled.
> > Meanwhile, if system succeed to resume back with pm_trace set, the
> > users are warned to adjust the bogus rtc either by ntp-date or rdate,
> > by resetting pm_trace_rtc_abused to false, otherwise above tools might
> > not work as expected.
> >
> > Originally-from: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
> > Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
> > Cc: John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>
> > Cc: Xunlei Pang <xlpang@...hat.com>
> > Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>
> > Cc: Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>
> > Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
> > Cc: Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
> > Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
> > Signed-off-by: Chen Yu <yu.c.chen@...el.com>
>
>
> Looks ok to me. I'm queueing it up for testing. If no one objects
> (and I don't see any issues) I'll merge it to my tree and push it to
> -tip through Thomas.
No objections here, thanks John!
Cheers,
Rafael
Powered by blists - more mailing lists