From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt Subject: Re: [Bug #12667] Badness at kernel/time/timekeeping.c:98 in pmud (timekeeping_suspended) Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 08:51:43 +1100 Message-ID: <1235080303.8805.50.camel@pasglop> References: <878wognj00.fsf@burly.wgtn.ondioline.org> <200902142342.59186.rjw@sisk.pl> <87hc2u26m5.fsf@burly.wgtn.ondioline.org> <1234775410.26036.122.camel@pasglop> <87d4di1wwr.fsf@burly.wgtn.ondioline.org> <87r61uzv95.fsf@burly.wgtn.ondioline.org> <1235032710.8805.37.camel@pasglop> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: kernel-testers-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: Thomas Gleixner Cc: Paul Collins , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Kernel Testers List , Ingo Molnar On Thu, 2009-02-19 at 21:17 +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > Well, harsh or not is not the question here. > > Fact is that you call gettimeofday() _before_ the timekeeping code has > resumed. > > That's a simple ordering problem. timekeeping is in the sysdev class > as well and it's not the only sysdev which has explicit ordering > requirements. And how do I control that ordering ? I find that a bit fishy ... What about making gettimeofday() in the timekeeping code work, just return a frozen snapshot of the value on suspend instead ? Ben.