linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: John Stultz <john.stultz@linaro.org>
To: Feng Tang <feng.tang@intel.com>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	Alessandro Zummo <a.zummo@towertech.it>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, alek.du@intel.com,
	jgunthorpe@obsidianresearch.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] timekeeping: Add persistent_clock_exist flag
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 18:00:23 -0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <50CA8837.5010800@linaro.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20121214013725.GA11276@feng-snb>

On 12/13/2012 05:37 PM, Feng Tang wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 05:20:36PM -0800, John Stultz wrote:
>> On 12/12/2012 06:05 PM, Feng Tang wrote:
>>> In current kernel, there are several places which need to check
>>> whether there is a persistent clock for the platform. Current check
>>> is done by calling the read_persistent_clock() and validating the
>>> return value.
>>>
>>> Add such a flag to make code more readable and call read_persistent_clock()
>>> only once for all the checks.
>> Sorry.. What  the actual benefit of this patch set?   (Usually with
>> changelogs its better to explain why you're doing something, rather
>> then just what you're doing.)
> The main benefits is not bother to do the rtc_resume and rtc_suspend work
> if persistent clock exists. Current RTC suspend/resume code will do many
> time calculation and compensation work at first, and then call
> timekeeping_inject_sleeptime() which will just return for platform with
> persistent clock, what I did in this patchset is to put the check at
> the start, also I save the persistent_clock_exist flag for all possible
> check after timekeeping_init().

CC'ing Jason as his recent patch is conceptually connected here.

Ok, Feng, so your patch set is a suspend/resume optimization for the 
case where the architecture has a read_persistent_clock() 
implementation, but the kernel config has also the rtc HCTOSYS_DEVICE 
set, right?

So we basically short-cut the rtc's HCTOSYS_DEVICE suspend/resume logic, 
likely to speed up suspend/resume.

So per Jason's related patch, he's made the point that the 
persistent_clock and RTC class functionality are basically exclusive 
(well, in his case, he said this with respect to updating the RTC, not 
reading it - I don't mean to put words in his mouth - Please do correct 
me here Jason. :).  In other words, we probably should avoid 
configurations where both the rtc hctosys and persistent_clock 
interfaces are both active.

So my thought here is that this same behavioral change could be made via 
Kconfig constraints rather then extra run-time conditionals. Basically 
we add a HAS_PERSISTENT_CLOCK, that architectures select if they want to 
use the read/update_persistent_clock calls. Then we make the HCTOSYS 
option be dependent on !HAS_PERSISTENT_CLOCK. This way we avoid having 
configs where there are conflicting paths that we chose from.

thanks
-john

  reply	other threads:[~2012-12-14  2:00 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2012-12-13  2:05 [PATCH 1/3] timekeeping: Add persistent_clock_exist flag Feng Tang
2012-12-13  2:05 ` [PATCH 2/3] rtc: Skip the suspend/resume handling if persistent clock exist Feng Tang
2012-12-13  2:05 ` [PATCH 3/3] rtc: Skip setting xtime if persisent " Feng Tang
2012-12-14  1:20 ` [PATCH 1/3] timekeeping: Add persistent_clock_exist flag John Stultz
2012-12-14  1:37   ` Feng Tang
2012-12-14  2:00     ` John Stultz [this message]
2012-12-14  2:15       ` Feng Tang
2012-12-14  2:38       ` Jason Gunthorpe
2012-12-14  3:13         ` Feng Tang
2012-12-14  4:10           ` Jason Gunthorpe
2012-12-14 21:22             ` John Stultz
2012-12-14 21:56               ` Jason Gunthorpe
2012-12-14 23:23                 ` John Stultz
2012-12-17 16:14                 ` Feng Tang
2012-12-17 18:22                   ` Jason Gunthorpe
2012-12-18  2:44                     ` Feng Tang
2012-12-14 21:36         ` John Stultz
2012-12-20  7:02         ` Feng Tang

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=50CA8837.5010800@linaro.org \
    --to=john.stultz@linaro.org \
    --cc=a.zummo@towertech.it \
    --cc=alek.du@intel.com \
    --cc=feng.tang@intel.com \
    --cc=jgunthorpe@obsidianresearch.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    /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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).