Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 23 Jul 2007 11:44:53 -0400 | From | Bill Davidsen <> | Subject | Re: [RFC] what should 'uptime' be on suspend? |
| |
Ken Moffat wrote: > On Sat, Jul 21, 2007 at 09:54:37AM -0400, Bill Davidsen wrote: > >> So is setting it to a random number considered correct behavior? Any of >> the first three values I mentioned would make sense, but the value I see >> is neither time since resume, time since power-on to do the resume, or >> any of the logical uptime values. That was the whole point of the >> original post, the uptime reported makes no sense at all. >> >> > I assumed you had booted for a short time, suspended, resumed, and > then noticed the uptime was longer than time since resume. > > If you think there is a bug it might help to do a cold boot, at > some point note uptime and then immediately suspend, resume some time > later, immediately note uptime (including local time), keep it > running, and later monitor uptime against local time (i.e. the local > time will let you know the change you expect to see in uptime). You > might also want to confirm that the local time is maintained > correctly. > I resumed this morning, uptime before the suspend was ~4 hours, suspend time was ~30 hours, resume took 76 sec from power-on, uptime was 2m56s. As originally noted, the first time I did this the "uptime" after resume was 6+min. First noted on suspend to ram, this was suspend to disk to see if that changed anything.
Just an oddity, I guess if I care I can track it myself.
-- bill davidsen <davidsen@tmr.com> CTO TMR Associates, Inc Doing interesting things with small computers since 1979
- 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/
| |