From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Kevin Hilman <khilman@deeprootsystems.com>
Cc: Paul Walmsley <paul@pwsan.com>,
Wolfram Sang <w.sang@pengutronix.de>,
balbi@ti.com, Shubhrajyoti Datta <omaplinuxkernel@gmail.com>,
linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org, Ben Dooks <ben-linux@fluff.org>,
Russell King <rmk+kernel@arm.linux.org.uk>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
linux-omap@vger.kernel.org, Shubhrajyoti D <shubhrajyoti@ti.com>,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: RT throttling and suspend/resume (was Re: [PATCH] i2c: omap: revert "i2c: omap: switch to threaded IRQ support")
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2012 11:52:21 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1350899541.2768.82.camel@twins> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87391ahvao.fsf@deeprootsystems.com>
On Fri, 2012-10-19 at 16:54 -0700, Kevin Hilman wrote:
> So I did the same thing for my ARM SoC, and it definitley stops the RT
> throttling.
>
> However, it has the undesriable (IMO) side effect of making timed printk
> output rather unhelpful for debugging suspend/resume since printk time
> stays constant throughout suspend/resume no matter how long you
> sleep. :(
>
> So does that mean we have to choose between useful printk times during
> suspend/resume or functioning IRQ threads during suspend/resume ?
Urgh.. this was not something I considered. This being primarily the
sched_clock infrastructure and such.
So what exactly is the problem with the suspend resume thing (its not
something I've ever debugged), is all you need a clean break between pre
and post suspend, or do you need the actual time the machine was gone?
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: peterz@infradead.org (Peter Zijlstra)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: RT throttling and suspend/resume (was Re: [PATCH] i2c: omap: revert "i2c: omap: switch to threaded IRQ support")
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2012 11:52:21 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1350899541.2768.82.camel@twins> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87391ahvao.fsf@deeprootsystems.com>
On Fri, 2012-10-19 at 16:54 -0700, Kevin Hilman wrote:
> So I did the same thing for my ARM SoC, and it definitley stops the RT
> throttling.
>
> However, it has the undesriable (IMO) side effect of making timed printk
> output rather unhelpful for debugging suspend/resume since printk time
> stays constant throughout suspend/resume no matter how long you
> sleep. :(
>
> So does that mean we have to choose between useful printk times during
> suspend/resume or functioning IRQ threads during suspend/resume ?
Urgh.. this was not something I considered. This being primarily the
sched_clock infrastructure and such.
So what exactly is the problem with the suspend resume thing (its not
something I've ever debugged), is all you need a clean break between pre
and post suspend, or do you need the actual time the machine was gone?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-10-22 9:52 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 36+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-10-15 1:51 [PATCH] i2c: omap: revert "i2c: omap: switch to threaded IRQ support" Paul Walmsley
2012-10-15 1:51 ` Paul Walmsley
2012-10-15 7:16 ` Felipe Balbi
2012-10-15 7:16 ` Felipe Balbi
[not found] ` <20121015071657.GA22818-S8G//mZuvNWo5Im9Ml3/Zg@public.gmane.org>
2012-10-15 15:05 ` Paul Walmsley
2012-10-15 15:05 ` Paul Walmsley
2012-10-16 12:58 ` Shubhrajyoti Datta
2012-10-16 12:58 ` Shubhrajyoti Datta
2012-10-16 13:33 ` Felipe Balbi
2012-10-16 13:33 ` Felipe Balbi
2012-10-16 13:37 ` Felipe Balbi
2012-10-16 13:37 ` Felipe Balbi
2012-10-16 21:39 ` RT throttling and suspend/resume (was Re: [PATCH] i2c: omap: revert "i2c: omap: switch to threaded IRQ support") Kevin Hilman
2012-10-16 21:39 ` Kevin Hilman
[not found] ` <87ipaanljt.fsf_-_-1D3HCaltpLuhEniVeURVKkEOCMrvLtNR@public.gmane.org>
2012-10-17 14:00 ` Felipe Balbi
2012-10-17 14:00 ` Felipe Balbi
2012-10-17 14:35 ` Felipe Balbi
2012-10-17 14:41 ` Felipe Balbi
2012-10-17 23:06 ` Kevin Hilman
2012-10-17 23:06 ` Kevin Hilman
2012-10-18 5:51 ` Felipe Balbi
2012-10-18 5:51 ` Felipe Balbi
[not found] ` <20121018055136.GF11137-S8G//mZuvNWo5Im9Ml3/Zg@public.gmane.org>
2012-10-19 14:00 ` Peter Zijlstra
2012-10-19 14:00 ` Peter Zijlstra
2012-10-19 16:30 ` Felipe Balbi
2012-10-19 16:30 ` Felipe Balbi
2012-10-19 23:28 ` Kevin Hilman
2012-10-19 23:28 ` Kevin Hilman
2012-10-19 23:54 ` Kevin Hilman
2012-10-19 23:54 ` Kevin Hilman
2012-10-22 9:52 ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2012-10-22 9:52 ` Peter Zijlstra
2012-10-22 16:47 ` Kevin Hilman
2012-10-22 16:47 ` Kevin Hilman
[not found] ` <87ehkqihdh.fsf-1D3HCaltpLuhEniVeURVKkEOCMrvLtNR@public.gmane.org>
2012-10-23 9:19 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2012-10-23 9:19 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1350899541.2768.82.camel@twins \
--to=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=balbi@ti.com \
--cc=ben-linux@fluff.org \
--cc=khilman@deeprootsystems.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-omap@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=omaplinuxkernel@gmail.com \
--cc=paul@pwsan.com \
--cc=rmk+kernel@arm.linux.org.uk \
--cc=shubhrajyoti@ti.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=w.sang@pengutronix.de \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.