[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.00.0812212031220.4548@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2008 20:43:56 +0100 (CET)
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Steven Rostedt <srostedt@...hat.com>, dsaxena@...xity.net,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Dave Kleikamp <shaggy@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: TSC not updating after resume: Bug or Feature?
On Sun, 21 Dec 2008, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Dec 2008, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > 5b7dba4: sched_clock: prevent scd->clock from moving backwards
> > >
> > > and the bug triggered by hibernation fixed instead.
>
> Hmm. Depending on the hibernation sleep time we can end up with a
> pretty long delta between the pre suspend and the post resume call to
> __update_sched_clock().
>
> I have the feeling that sched_clock looks into stale values after
> resume and the first call to __update_sched_clock() trips over the
> stale scd->clock value. Shaggy's patch brings scd->clock into the mix
> and that might cause the whole machinery to blow up on resume.
>
> Also we need to investigate whether sched_clock is referencing gtod
> values _before_ timekeeping is resume.
I checked the two bugzillas (12149 & 12155) and both reporters have
hpet=force on the command line.
One of the reporters said: "If I de-select CONFIG_HPET_TIMER then the
issue went away ..."
It looks like this was not further investigated. Is this problem
reproducible on other systems as well ?
Thanks,
tglx
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists