[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200902192223.05361.rjw@sisk.pl>
Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2009 22:23:04 +0100
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
Paul Collins <paul@...ly.ondioline.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Kernel Testers List <kernel-testers@...r.kernel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Subject: Re: [Bug #12667] Badness at kernel/time/timekeeping.c:98 in pmud (timekeeping_suspended)
On Thursday 19 February 2009, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Feb 2009, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 2009-02-19 at 21:27 +1300, Paul Collins wrote:
> > > > Just for laughs I slapped together the following, which seems to do
> > > the
> > > > job, although not especially tidily.
> > >
> > > And it doesn't even do the job. Judging by this new trace, submitting
> > > input events from the via-pmu resume function is still too early.
> > >
> > What's up Thomas ? We can't call gettimeofday() from a sysdev
> > suspend/resume ? That's a little bit too harsh no ?
>
> Well, harsh or not is not the question here.
>
> Fact is that you call gettimeofday() _before_ the timekeeping code has
> resumed.
>
> That's a simple ordering problem. timekeeping is in the sysdev class
> as well and it's not the only sysdev which has explicit ordering
> requirements.
Do we need suspend-resume priorities for sysdevs? Such that sysdevs
with a higher priority will always be suspended earlier and resumed later
than sysdevs with lower priority (or the other way around)?
Rafael
--
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