Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 17 Apr 2012 16:12:20 -0400 | From | Mark Lord <> | Subject | Re: [REGRESSION] rtc/interface.c: kills suspend-to-ram |
| |
On 12-04-17 04:11 PM, Mark Lord wrote: > On 12-04-17 01:13 AM, John Stultz wrote: > .. >> - rtc->ops->alarm_irq_enable(rtc->dev.parent, false); >> + //rtc->ops->alarm_irq_enable(rtc->dev.parent, false); >> + dump_stack(); > .. > > Okay, the call into here is coming from a "hwclock -w -u" line > in the system suspend script.
Forgot the stack dump:
Pid: 4353, comm: hwclock Tainted: P O 3.3.2 #5 Call Trace: [<ffffffff8123cfcd>] ? rtc_timer_remove+0x66/0xb2 [<ffffffff8103d2ff>] ? should_resched+0x5/0x23 [<ffffffff8123d21b>] ? rtc_update_irq_enable+0xd0/0x108 [<ffffffff812dd582>] ? __mutex_lock_common.isra.5+0x3b/0x166 [<ffffffff8123e058>] ? rtc_dev_ioctl+0x36d/0x468 [<ffffffff8101b78a>] ? do_page_fault+0x264/0x2ce [<ffffffff81027650>] ? timespec_add_safe+0x33/0x63 [<ffffffff810077a8>] ? read_tsc+0x5/0x14 [<ffffffff810483fa>] ? timekeeping_get_ns+0xd/0x2a [<ffffffff810ab492>] ? do_vfs_ioctl+0x45a/0x49c [<ffffffff810abb8e>] ? poll_select_copy_remaining+0xdb/0xfb [<ffffffff810ab511>] ? sys_ioctl+0x3d/0x60 [<ffffffff812df222>] ? system_call_fastpath+0x16/0x1b
> Since that command isn't touching the hardware Alarm, > then neither should the Linux kernel. Yet it is touching it. > >> CMOS_WRITE(rtc_control, RTC_CONTROL); >> - hpet_mask_rtc_irq_bit(mask); >> + //hpet_mask_rtc_irq_bit(mask); >> >> - cmos_checkintr(cmos, rtc_control); >> + //cmos_checkintr(cmos, rtc_control); > ... > > The problem still occurs (lockup on suspend) > with both lines above commented out. > > Note that it's not 100% in any case, more like 8/10, > indicating a possible strong race condition somewhere. > > I think all that should be done here, is to change the kernel > to NOT enable/disable the Alarm unless told to do so by > an explicit userspace action. Eg. writing to /sys/../wakealarm > and/or /proc/acpi/alarm. > > If userspace leaves the alarm alone, then so should the kernel when possible. > That's the old behaviour before the new alarm_irq_enable() stuff. > > Cheers
| |