public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@sisk.pl>
To: john stultz <johnstul@us.ibm.com>
Cc: Jonathan Black <vampjon@gmail.com>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Pavel Machek <pavel@suse.cz>
Subject: Re: uptime increases during suspend
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2006 00:43:12 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <200603280043.13004.rjw@sisk.pl> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1143484821.2168.16.camel@leatherman>

Hi,

On Monday 27 March 2006 20:40, john stultz wrote:
> On Sat, 2006-03-25 at 16:02 +0100, Jonathan Black wrote:
> > 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.
> 
> Yes, I don't know exactly when it was changed, but jiffies is now
> updated when we return from suspend, which causes the uptime to
> effectively increase while we are suspended.

IIRC on x86_64 jiffies has always been updated in timer_resume(),
but this did not cause uptime to behave like that until recently.

There must have been an unrelated change somewhere in the time-handling
code that made this behavior appear, but I haven't found it yet.

> [snip]
> > 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.
> 
> Well, anyone can hack their kernel to say whatever uptime they want, so
> I'm not to worried about cheating. Are you seeing an actual bug here?
>  
> > Would it be possible to get the old behaviour back?
> 
> Why exactly do you want this behavior? Maybe a better explanation would
> help stir this discussion.

Apparently it makes some people's setups break.

Greetings,
Rafael

  parent reply	other threads:[~2006-03-27 22:44 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2006-03-25 15:02 uptime increases during suspend Jonathan Black
2006-03-25 15:10 ` 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 [this message]
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=200603280043.13004.rjw@sisk.pl \
    --to=rjw@sisk.pl \
    --cc=johnstul@us.ibm.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=pavel@suse.cz \
    --cc=vampjon@gmail.com \
    /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