Re: [Bug #12667] Badness at kernel/time/timekeeping.c:98 in pmud (timekeeping_suspended)

Rafael J. Wysocki
2009-02-19T22:08:45Z

On Thursday 19 February 2009, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-02-19 at 14:00 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Thursday 19 February 2009, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2009-02-19 at 21:27 +1300, Paul Collins wrote:
> > > > > Just for laughs I slapped together the following, which seems to do
> > > > the
> > > > > job, although not especially tidily.
> > > >
> > > > And it doesn't even do the job. Judging by this new trace, submitting
> > > > input events from the via-pmu resume function is still too early.
> > > >
> > > What's up Thomas ? We can't call gettimeofday() from a sysdev
> > > suspend/resume ? That's a little bit too harsh no ?
> >
> > Perhaps the ordering is wrong (ie. via-pmu resume happens bevore timekeeping
> > resume)?
>
> In this case, maybe gtod should just return the frozen time (ie, last
> time at the time of suspend) rather than WARN ?

This might work, but there seem to be more problems like this (cpufreq vs
timekeeping for example).

I think we need a more general approach.

Thanks,
Rafael