lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Dec]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [Bug #12155] Regression in 2.6.28-rc and 2.6.27-stable - hibernate related
Date
On Saturday, 13 of December 2008, Fabio Comolli wrote:
> Hi.

Hi,

> On Sat, Dec 13, 2008 at 5:33 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@sisk.pl> wrote:
> > This message has been generated automatically as a part of a report
> > of recent regressions.
> >
> > The following bug entry is on the current list of known regressions
> > from 2.6.27. Please verify if it still should be listed and let me know
> > (either way).
> >
> >
> > Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12155
> > Subject : Regression in 2.6.28-rc and 2.6.27-stable - hibernate related
> > Submitter : Fabio Comolli <fabio.comolli@gmail.com>
> > Date : 2008-11-23 16:17 (21 days old)
> > References : http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=122745709926361&w=4
>
> Still present. It has been bisected to:
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> commit 5e55aa8db085dad1aabb4574c73c23c7ae571e7b
> Author: Dave Kleikamp <shaggy@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> Date: Sun Oct 26 18:20:14 2008 -0400
>
> sched_clock: prevent scd->clock from moving backwards
>
> commit 5b7dba4ff834259a5623e03a565748704a8fe449 upstream
>
> sched_clock: prevent scd->clock from moving backwards
>
> When sched_clock_cpu() couples the clocks between two cpus, it may
> increment scd->clock beyond the GTOD tick window that __update_sched_clock()
> uses to clamp the clock. A later call to __update_sched_clock() may move
> the clock back to scd->tick_gtod + TICK_NSEC, violating the clock's
> monotonic property.
>
> This patch ensures that scd->clock will not be set backward.
>
> Signed-off-by: Dave Kleikamp <shaggy@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> Acked-by: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
> Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
> Cc: Chuck Ebbert <cebbert@redhat.com>
> Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@suse.de>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Both 2.6.27.8 and 2.6.28-rc8 with that commit reverted work fine
> (well, at least they failed to show the bug so far).

Thanks for the update, I have put this information into the Bugzilla entry.

Would everyone involved agree with reverting the above commit for now and
revisiting the issue in the 2.6.29 time frame?

Rafael




\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-12-13 20:01    [W:0.075 / U:1.576 seconds]
©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site