From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932365AbaKMJKY (ORCPT ); Thu, 13 Nov 2014 04:10:24 -0500 Received: from www.linutronix.de ([62.245.132.108]:45289 "EHLO Galois.linutronix.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932160AbaKMJKT (ORCPT ); Thu, 13 Nov 2014 04:10:19 -0500 Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2014 10:10:05 +0100 (CET) From: Thomas Gleixner To: Peter Zijlstra cc: "Li, Aubrey" , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , "Brown, Len" , "alan@linux.intel.com" , "H. Peter Anvin" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, "linux-pm@vger.kernel.org >> Linux PM list" Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] PM / Sleep: Timer quiesce in freeze state In-Reply-To: <20141113013707.GQ29390@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> Message-ID: References: <5446787E.60202@linux.intel.com> <20141024153656.GM12706@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net> <544DE5CF.9040501@linux.intel.com> <20141027074419.GE10501@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net> <544F4B31.7050308@linux.intel.com> <20141028082503.GN3337@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> <5450253B.5020802@linux.intel.com> <20141029082432.GV3337@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> <5451A94F.1090200@linux.intel.com> <20141113013707.GQ29390@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> User-Agent: Alpine 2.11 (DEB 23 2013-08-11) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Linutronix-Spam-Score: -1.0 X-Linutronix-Spam-Level: - X-Linutronix-Spam-Status: No , -1.0 points, 5.0 required, ALL_TRUSTED=-1,SHORTCIRCUIT=-0.0001 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 13 Nov 2014, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 10:09:47PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > But sure, we can add suspend notifiers to stuff to shut down timers; I > should have a patch for at least one of the offenders somewhere. But I > really think that we should not be looking at the individual timers for > this, none of the other suspend modes care about active timers. Fair enough. > > But before we do that we want a proper explanation why the interrupt > > fires at all. The lack of explanation cleary documents that this is a > > 'hacked it into submission' approach. > > >From what I remember its the waking interrupt that ends up in the > timekeeping code, Li should have a backtrace somwhere. I can imagine what happens :) > > stomp_machine() is in 99% of all use cases a clear indicator for a > > complete design failure. > > > So the generic idle task needs a check like this: > > > > if (idle_should_freeze()) > > frozen_idle(); > > So that is adding extra code to fairly common/hot paths just for this > one extra special case. I tried to avoid doing that. idle enter is not that much of a hot path, really. Thanks, tglx