From: Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@arm.linux.org.uk>
To: Kevin Hilman <khilman@deeprootsystems.com>
Cc: Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>, Tony Lindgren <tony@atomide.com>,
Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>,
Daniel Walker <dwalker@fifo99.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Kukjin Kim <kgene.kim@samsung.com>,
Barry Song <21cnbao@gmail.com>,
Kyungmin Park <kyungmin.park@samsung.com>,
Lennert Buytenhek <kernel@wantstofly.org>,
David Brown <davidb@codeaurora.org>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
Stephen Warren <swarren@wwwdotorg.org>,
John Stultz <john.stultz@linaro.org>,
Ben Dooks <ben-linux@fluff.org>,
Alexander Schulz <alex@shark-linux.de>,
Linux OMAP Mailing List <linux-omap@vger.kernel.org>,
Andrew Victor <linux@maxim.org.za>,
Linux ARM Kernel Mailing List
<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
Paul Walmsley <paul@pwsan.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Felipe Balbi <balbi@ti.com>,
Bryan Huntsman <bryanh@codeaurora.org>,
Santosh
Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm: sched: stop sched_clock() during suspend
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2012 17:03:31 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20121023160331.GF28061@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87a9vdclxe.fsf@deeprootsystems.com>
On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 07:17:33AM -0700, Kevin Hilman wrote:
> Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@arm.linux.org.uk> writes:
> > No, printk() does not need this. You think it does, but it doesn't. What
> > we have is a difference between ARM and x86, and this difference is breaking
> > the scheduler.
> >
> > The fact that the printk timestamp increments while suspended is a bug. It
> > doesn't on x86.
>
> Russell, I agree that it's a bug, but does it qualify as a something
> you're willing to take for v3.7-rc?
Definitely. Our current behaviour across suspend for the scheduler is
wrong. This is one of the questions I had when I created the sched_clock
stuff - but no one at the time could answer. So, now that we have our
answer, let's get it fixed to conform.
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: linux@arm.linux.org.uk (Russell King - ARM Linux)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH] arm: sched: stop sched_clock() during suspend
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2012 17:03:31 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20121023160331.GF28061@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87a9vdclxe.fsf@deeprootsystems.com>
On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 07:17:33AM -0700, Kevin Hilman wrote:
> Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@arm.linux.org.uk> writes:
> > No, printk() does not need this. You think it does, but it doesn't. What
> > we have is a difference between ARM and x86, and this difference is breaking
> > the scheduler.
> >
> > The fact that the printk timestamp increments while suspended is a bug. It
> > doesn't on x86.
>
> Russell, I agree that it's a bug, but does it qualify as a something
> you're willing to take for v3.7-rc?
Definitely. Our current behaviour across suspend for the scheduler is
wrong. This is one of the questions I had when I created the sched_clock
stuff - but no one at the time could answer. So, now that we have our
answer, let's get it fixed to conform.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-10-23 16:03 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 25+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-10-22 11:54 [PATCH] arm: sched: stop sched_clock() during suspend Felipe Balbi
2012-10-22 11:54 ` Felipe Balbi
2012-10-22 12:07 ` Felipe Balbi
2012-10-22 12:07 ` Felipe Balbi
2012-10-22 12:07 ` Felipe Balbi
2012-10-22 17:05 ` Kevin Hilman
2012-10-22 17:05 ` Kevin Hilman
2012-10-22 17:05 ` Kevin Hilman
2012-10-22 22:28 ` Linus Walleij
2012-10-22 22:28 ` Linus Walleij
2012-10-22 22:28 ` Linus Walleij
2012-10-23 9:22 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2012-10-23 9:22 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2012-10-23 14:17 ` Kevin Hilman
2012-10-23 14:17 ` Kevin Hilman
2012-10-23 16:03 ` Russell King - ARM Linux [this message]
2012-10-23 16:03 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2012-10-23 17:24 ` Felipe Balbi
2012-10-23 17:24 ` Felipe Balbi
2012-10-23 5:57 ` [PATCH v2] " Felipe Balbi
2012-10-23 5:57 ` Felipe Balbi
2012-10-23 14:14 ` Kevin Hilman
2012-10-23 14:14 ` Kevin Hilman
2012-10-23 10:11 ` [PATCH] " Linus Walleij
2012-10-23 10:11 ` Linus Walleij
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=20121023160331.GF28061@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk \
--to=linux@arm.linux.org.uk \
--cc=21cnbao@gmail.com \
--cc=alex@shark-linux.de \
--cc=andrew@lunn.ch \
--cc=arnd@arndb.de \
--cc=balbi@ti.com \
--cc=ben-linux@fluff.org \
--cc=bryanh@codeaurora.org \
--cc=davidb@codeaurora.org \
--cc=dwalker@fifo99.com \
--cc=john.stultz@linaro.org \
--cc=kernel@wantstofly.org \
--cc=kgene.kim@samsung.com \
--cc=khilman@deeprootsystems.com \
--cc=kyungmin.park@samsung.com \
--cc=linus.walleij@linaro.org \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-omap@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux@maxim.org.za \
--cc=paul@pwsan.com \
--cc=swarren@wwwdotorg.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=tony@atomide.com \
/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.