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.