Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [BUG] APM resume breakage from 2.6.18-rc1 clocksource changes | From | john stultz <> | Date | Mon, 10 Jul 2006 11:19:48 -0700 |
| |
On Mon, 2006-07-10 at 20:08 +0200, Pavel Machek wrote: > Hi! > > > > >> I've traced the cause of this problem to the i386 time-keeping > > > >> changes in kernel 2.6.17-git11. What happens is that: > > > >> - The kernel autoselects TSC as my clocksource, which is > > > >> reasonable since it's a PentiumII. 2.6.17 also chose the TSC. > > > >> - Immediately after APM resumes (arch/i386/kernel/apm.c line > > > >> 1231 in 2.6.18-rc1) there is an interrupt from the PIT, > > > >> which takes us to kernel/timer.c:update_wall_time(). > > > >> - update_wall_time() does a clocksource_read() and computes > > > >> the offset from the previous read. However, the TSC was > > > >> reset by HW or BIOS during the APM suspend/resume cycle and > > > >> is now smaller than it was at the prevous read. On my machine, > > > >> the offset is 0xffffffd598e0a566 at this point, which appears > > > >> to throw update_wall_time() into a very very long loop. > > > > > > > >Huh. It seems you're getting an interrupt before timekeeping_resume() > > > >runs (which resets cycle_last). I'll look over the code and see if I can > > > >sort out why it works w/ ACPI suspend, but not APM, or if the > > > >resume/interrupt-enablement bit is just racy in general. > > > > > > I forgot to mention this, but I had a debug printk() in apm.c > > > which showed that irqs_disabled() == 0 at the point when APM > > > resumes the kernel. > > > > So it seems possible that the timer tick will be enabled before the > > timekeeping resume code runs. I'm not sure why this isn't seen w/ ACPI > > suspend/resume, as I think they're using the same > > sysdev_class .suspend/.resume bits. > > ACPI actually keeps interrupts disabled, always. > > APM can only keep interrupts disabled on non-IBM machines, presumably > due to BIOS problems. > > Could we get some sanity check into looping function? If timesource > goes backwards, at least somehow reporting it would be nice...
Yep, I'm working on a debug patch (similar to the paranoid timekeeping debugging option in earlier versions of the TOD patch) that will spit out warnings when we see unusual behavior: large numbers of lost ticks, timer ticks arriving too early, settimeofday being call, etc.
thanks -john
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |