From: Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@acm.org>
To: Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
Len Brown <lenb@kernel.org>,
kbuild test robot <fengguang.wu@intel.com>,
ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org>,
Stable <stable@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ACPICA: Fix dispatcher timeout mechanism
Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2018 08:03:30 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1539702210.129692.12.camel@acm.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20181016050457.GA6031@kroah.com>
On Tue, 2018-10-16 at 07:04 +0200, Greg KH wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 15, 2018 at 04:01:35PM -0700, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> > On Tue, 2018-10-16 at 00:44 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 12:19 AM Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@acm.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > This patch avoids that the following warning is reported during hibernation:
> > >
> > > Well, what exactly is the problem and why is the patch the right way
> > > to address it?
> >
> > It is not safe to call ktime_get() after having called timekeeping_suspend().
> >
> > > > /*
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/acpi/acpica/dscontrol.c b/drivers/acpi/acpica/dscontrol.c
> > > > index 0da96268deb5..9dbea4549484 100644
> > > > --- a/drivers/acpi/acpica/dscontrol.c
> > > > +++ b/drivers/acpi/acpica/dscontrol.c
> > > > @@ -84,8 +84,8 @@ acpi_ds_exec_begin_control_op(struct acpi_walk_state *walk_state,
> > > > control_state->control.package_end =
> > > > walk_state->parser_state.pkg_end;
> > > > control_state->control.opcode = op->common.aml_opcode;
> > > > - control_state->control.loop_timeout = acpi_os_get_timer() +
> > > > - (u64)(acpi_gbl_max_loop_iterations * ACPI_100NSEC_PER_SEC);
> > > > + control_state->control.loop_timeout = jiffies +
> > > > + acpi_gbl_max_loop_iterations * HZ;
> > >
> > > jiffies is Linux-specific and so it should not be used in the ACPICA code.
> >
> > Really? There is plenty of other ACPI code that uses the jiffies counter directly.
> > Why wouldn't it be allowed to use the jiffies counter in this context since there
> > is so much other ACPI code that uses that counter?
>
> acpica is different from acpi. It is the "core acpi code" that is
> shared across other operating systems. That is why jiffies does not
> work in it :(
Thanks Greg for the feedback. I wasn't aware of the difference between ACPICA and
other ACPI code.
Bart.
prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-10-16 22:54 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <20181015221848.256323-1-bvanassche@acm.org>
2018-10-15 22:44 ` [PATCH] ACPICA: Fix dispatcher timeout mechanism Rafael J. Wysocki
2018-10-15 23:01 ` Bart Van Assche
2018-10-16 5:04 ` Greg KH
2018-10-16 15:03 ` Bart Van Assche [this message]
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=1539702210.129692.12.camel@acm.org \
--to=bvanassche@acm.org \
--cc=fengguang.wu@intel.com \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=lenb@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=rafael@kernel.org \
--cc=rjw@rjwysocki.net \
--cc=stable@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