lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Feb]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    From
    SubjectRe: [Bug #12667] Badness at kernel/time/timekeeping.c:98 in pmud (timekeeping_suspended)
    Date
    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


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2009-02-19 22:25    [W:0.043 / U:129.560 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site