[<prev] [next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200910200645.02384.rjw@sisk.pl>
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2009 06:45:02 +0200
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
To: pm list <linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: [PATCH] PM: Make warning in suspend_test_finish() less likely to happen
From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@...k.pl>
Increase TEST_SUSPEND_SECONDS to 10 so the warning in
suspend_test_finish() doesn't annoy the users of slower systems so
much.
Also, make the warning print the suspend-resume cycle time, so
that we know why the warning actually triggered.
Patch prepared during the hacking session at the Kernel Summit in
Tokyo.
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@...k.pl>
---
kernel/power/suspend_test.c | 5 +++--
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
Index: linux-2.6/kernel/power/suspend_test.c
===================================================================
--- linux-2.6.orig/kernel/power/suspend_test.c
+++ linux-2.6/kernel/power/suspend_test.c
@@ -19,7 +19,7 @@
* The time it takes is system-specific though, so when we test this
* during system bootup we allow a LOT of time.
*/
-#define TEST_SUSPEND_SECONDS 5
+#define TEST_SUSPEND_SECONDS 10
static unsigned long suspend_test_start_time;
@@ -49,7 +49,8 @@ void suspend_test_finish(const char *lab
* has some performance issues. The stack dump of a WARN_ON
* is more likely to get the right attention than a printk...
*/
- WARN(msec > (TEST_SUSPEND_SECONDS * 1000), "Component: %s\n", label);
+ WARN(msec > (TEST_SUSPEND_SECONDS * 1000),
+ "Component: %s, time: %u\n", label, msec);
}
/*
--
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