mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: ye janboe <janboe.ye@gmail.com>
To: john stultz <johnstul@us.ibm.com>
Cc: zippel@linux-m68k.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, mingo@elte.hu,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] update clocksource raw_time in timekeeping_suspend
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2009 16:07:10 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <af3ea28a0909100107q328d1288x8d677d4d5f79f728@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1252537622.9883.24.camel@localhost.localdomain>

hi, John

Thanks for your comments.

After sent this patch, I realize that this patch exposes the hardware
detail ugly in common code.

In embed system, user space apps need to have a method to get the
right time which will not be impacted by NTP and suspend.

Yes, you are right. I want to add sleep_length to the raw time and
user space apps could get the right time after suspend.

Is this right semantics of CLOCK_MONOTONIC_RAW?

Janboe
2009/9/10 john stultz <johnstul@us.ibm.com>:
> On Wed, 2009-09-09 at 15:35 +0800, ye janboe wrote:
>> after resume from suspend, raw_time is not updated in
>> timekeeping_suspend. CLOCK_MONOTONIC_RAW could not get the real hw
>> time.
>> This patch fix this issue.
>
> Hmm.. I'll admit suspend probably was less considered with
> CLOCK_MONOTONIC_RAW, so the semantics aren't well established.
>
> However, I do think we want CLOCK_MONOTONIC_RAW to at-least closely map
> to CLOCK_MONOTONIC (but *not* be NTP adjusted). I think that is what
> folks would most likely expect.
>
> However, that isn't what this patch seems to do.
>
> Over suspend, I believe all hardware counters reset, so this patch would
> seem to try to subtract the value back.
>
> This sort of makes sense for something like the TSC, which never wraps,
> so the raw_time would be set back to a tranlation of the actual TSC
> counter,  but for other clocksources like the ACPI PM, it would only
> subtract at most 5 seconds. So this leaks hardware specific detail in an
> ugly way.
>
> Instead I suspect the most intuitive change would be to add in the
> sleep_length to the raw time. This keeps CLOCK_MONOTONIC_RAW behaving
> similarly to CLOCK_MONOTONIC, which I believe makes it more useful for
> folks using CLOCK_MONOTONIC_RAW for things like tuning time
> synchronization.
>
> But let me know more why you chose this implementation and maybe that
> will show some better insight in to how you expect it to behave.
>
> thanks
> -john
>
>
>
>> Signed-off-by: janboe <janboe.ye@gmail.com>
>> ---
>>  kernel/time/timekeeping.c |    6 ++++++
>>  1 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/kernel/time/timekeeping.c b/kernel/time/timekeeping.c
>> index e8c77d9..8420b85 100644
>> --- a/kernel/time/timekeeping.c
>> +++ b/kernel/time/timekeeping.c
>> @@ -331,6 +331,8 @@ static unsigned long timekeeping_suspend_time;
>>  static int timekeeping_resume(struct sys_device *dev)
>>  {
>>         unsigned long flags;
>> +       s64 nsec;
>> +       cycle_t last_cycle, cycle_delta;
>>         unsigned long now = read_persistent_clock();
>>
>>         clocksource_resume();
>> @@ -346,8 +348,12 @@ static int timekeeping_resume(struct sys_device *dev)
>>         }
>>         update_xtime_cache(0);
>>         /* re-base the last cycle value */
>> +       last_cycle = clock->cycle_last;
>>         clock->cycle_last = 0;
>>         clock->cycle_last = clocksource_read(clock);
>> +       cycle_delta = clock->cycle_last - last_cycle;
>> +       nsec = cyc2ns(clock, cycle_delta);
>> +       timespec_add_ns(&clock->raw_time, nsec);
>>         clock->error = 0;
>>         timekeeping_suspended = 0;
>>         write_sequnlock_irqrestore(&xtime_lock, flags);
>
>

  reply	other threads:[~2009-09-10  8:07 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2009-09-09  7:35 ye janboe
2009-09-09 14:25 ` Yong Zhang
2009-09-09 22:32   ` ye janboe
2009-09-09 23:07 ` john stultz
2009-09-10  8:07   ` ye janboe [this message]
2009-09-10  9:31     ` Yong Zhang
2009-09-10 22:15       ` john stultz
2009-09-11  3:35         ` ye janboe
2009-09-11 18:09           ` john stultz

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=af3ea28a0909100107q328d1288x8d677d4d5f79f728@mail.gmail.com \
    --to=janboe.ye@gmail.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=johnstul@us.ibm.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@elte.hu \
    --cc=zippel@linux-m68k.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

all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®