[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100327233630.GB1810@mail.oracle.com>
Date: Sat, 27 Mar 2010 16:36:30 -0700
From: Joel Becker <Joel.Becker@...cle.com>
To: Yury Polyanskiy <ypolyans@...nceton.edu>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>,
john stultz <johnstul@...ibm.com>,
Jan Glauber <jan.glauber@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] hangcheck-timer is broken on x86
On Sat, Mar 27, 2010 at 06:51:01PM -0400, Yury Polyanskiy wrote:
> > It's OK to tell hangcheck-timer users that suspend is not
> > allowed. After all, you're running something that you don't want to see
> > hang.
>
> Joel, what I am saying is exactly the opposite: it is totally ok to
> suspend-resume with hangcheck-timer (jiffies are stopped and so is
> getrawmonotonic() when system suspended).
Nope. The point of hangcheck-timer is that it reboots should
the system not be running for a certain amountof time. If
suspend-resume is allowed, a system can resume after days and think it
wasn't more than a second. hangcheck-timer will not know to reboot.
> > Is there a clock in the system that is a true wallclock? I'm
> > guessing, since getrawmonotonic() is get_cycles() based, that it doesn't
> > provide accurate time in the face of cpufreq changes. Is that true?
>
> Of course, getrawmonotonic accounts for cpufreq changes (see
> arch/x86/kernel/tsc.c:time_cpufreq_notifier()).
Excellent! That's a definite improvement over raw get_cycles().
Joel
--
Life's Little Instruction Book #182
"Be romantic."
Joel Becker
Principal Software Developer
Oracle
E-mail: joel.becker@...cle.com
Phone: (650) 506-8127
--
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