From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Russell King - ARM Linux Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm: sched: stop sched_clock() during suspend Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2012 17:03:31 +0100 Message-ID: <20121023160331.GF28061@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> References: <1350906877-19410-1-git-send-email-balbi@ti.com> <873916h1yi.fsf@deeprootsystems.com> <20121023092231.GE28061@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <87a9vdclxe.fsf@deeprootsystems.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87a9vdclxe.fsf@deeprootsystems.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: linux-arm-kernel-bounces@lists.infradead.org Errors-To: linux-arm-kernel-bounces+linux-arm-kernel=m.gmane.org@lists.infradead.org To: Kevin Hilman Cc: Andrew Lunn , Tony Lindgren , Linus Walleij , Daniel Walker , Thomas Gleixner , Kukjin Kim , Barry Song <21cnbao@gmail.com>, Kyungmin Park , Lennert Buytenhek , David Brown , Arnd Bergmann , Stephen Warren , John Stultz , Ben Dooks , Alexander Schulz , Linux OMAP Mailing List , Andrew Victor , Linux ARM Kernel Mailing List , Paul Walmsley , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Felipe Balbi , Bryan Huntsman , Santosh List-Id: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 07:17:33AM -0700, Kevin Hilman wrote: > Russell King - ARM Linux 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. From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: linux@arm.linux.org.uk (Russell King - ARM Linux) Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2012 17:03:31 +0100 Subject: [PATCH] arm: sched: stop sched_clock() during suspend In-Reply-To: <87a9vdclxe.fsf@deeprootsystems.com> References: <1350906877-19410-1-git-send-email-balbi@ti.com> <873916h1yi.fsf@deeprootsystems.com> <20121023092231.GE28061@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <87a9vdclxe.fsf@deeprootsystems.com> Message-ID: <20121023160331.GF28061@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 07:17:33AM -0700, Kevin Hilman wrote: > Russell King - ARM Linux 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.