From: Jonathan Black <vampjon@gmail.com>
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc: john stultz <johnstul@us.ibm.com>
Subject: uptime increases during suspend
Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2006 16:02:40 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20060325150238.GA9023@beacon.dhs.org> (raw)
Hi,
I'd like to enquire about the following behaviour:
$ uptime && sudo hibernate && uptime
14:18:51 up 1 day, 4:12, 2 users, load average: 0.58, 3.30, 2.42
14:23:46 up 1 day, 4:17, 2 users, load average: 20.34, 7.74, 3.91
I.e. the system was suspended to disk for 5 minutes, but the value
reported by 'uptime' has increased by as much, as if it had actually
continued running during that time.
I'm using Linux 2.6.16 with the latest version of the Suspend 2 patch
(2.2.1), but Nigel its maintainer says that this isn't actually related
to his suspend code, essentially the same would happen using the swsusp
code currently in the kernel, and therefore we need to ask the kernel
time code people about this issue.
I've been using suspend2 for a while now, and until some point in the
past it used to be the case that uptime would stand still during
hibernation, i.e. only counting the time during which the system was
actually up and running. This seems like more meaningful and desirable
behaviour to me.
The way it is now, one can essentially "cheat": suspend a machine, put
it in the cupboard for a couple of weeks, resume it and claim a
respectable uptime, because the uptime value only reflects how long ago
the system was first booted up, with no regard to how much of that time
it has actually been running.
Would it be possible to get the old behaviour back?
Greetings,
--
jonathaN
next reply other threads:[~2006-03-25 15:02 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2006-03-25 15:02 Jonathan Black [this message]
2006-03-25 15:10 ` uptime increases during suspend Rafael J. Wysocki
2006-03-25 15:18 ` Jonathan Black
2006-03-26 21:38 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2006-03-27 18:40 ` john stultz
2006-03-27 19:53 ` Peter T. Breuer
2006-03-27 20:01 ` linux-os (Dick Johnson)
2006-03-27 22:30 ` Eric Piel
2006-03-28 3:57 ` Peter T. Breuer
2006-03-27 21:37 ` Tomasz Torcz
2006-03-27 22:43 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2006-03-29 14:52 ` Jonathan Black
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2006-03-28 2:01 Peter T. Breuer
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=20060325150238.GA9023@beacon.dhs.org \
--to=vampjon@gmail.com \
--cc=johnstul@us.ibm.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox