Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 1 May 2013 00:31:05 +0200 | From | Borislav Petkov <> | Subject | Re: Suspend resume problem (WAS Re: [ANNOUNCE] 3.8.10-rt6) |
| |
On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 07:09:48PM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > Now, the time jump on the other hand is the real issue here and is > RT-only. It looks like we get a big number of timer updates via > tick_do_update_jiffies64() because according to ktime_get() that much > time really passed by. > > The sollution seems as simple as > > From c27eb2e0ab0b5acd96a4b62288976f1b72789b3e Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > From: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de> > Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2013 18:53:55 +0200 > Subject: [PATCH] time/timekeeping: shadow tk->cycle_last together with > clock->cycle_last > > Commit ("timekeeping: Store cycle_last value in timekeeper struct as > well") introduced a tk-> based cycle_last values which needs to be reset > on resume path as well or else ktime_get() will think that time > increased a lot. > > Signed-off-by: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de> > --- > kernel/time/timekeeping.c | 1 + > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) > > diff --git a/kernel/time/timekeeping.c b/kernel/time/timekeeping.c > index 99f943b..688817f 100644 > --- a/kernel/time/timekeeping.c > +++ b/kernel/time/timekeeping.c > @@ -777,6 +777,7 @@ static void timekeeping_resume(void) > } > /* re-base the last cycle value */ > tk->clock->cycle_last = tk->clock->read(tk->clock); > + tk->cycle_last = tk->clock->cycle_last; > tk->ntp_error = 0; > timekeeping_suspended = 0; > timekeeping_update(tk, false, true);
Didn't tlgx fix a similar issue upstream already?
77c675ba18836.
-- Regards/Gruss, Boris.
Sent from a fat crate under my desk. Formatting is fine. --
| |