Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2005 11:57:59 +0100
From: Pavel Machek <pavel@suse.cz>
To: bernard@blackham.com.au
Cc: Shaw <shawv@comcast.net>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Screwy clock after apm suspend
Message-ID: <20050110105759.GM1353@elf.ucw.cz>
References: <7bb8b8de05010710085ea81da9@mail.gmail.com> <20050109224711.GF1353@elf.ucw.cz> <200501092328.54092.shawv@comcast.net> <20050110074422.GA17710@mussel>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20050110074422.GA17710@mussel>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6+20040907i
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1364
Lines: 36

Hi!

> > > Probably code to compensate clock after ACPI suspend breaks apm case
> > >
> > > arch/i386/kernel/time.c, can you comment out
> > > jiffies += sleep_length * HZ;
> > >
> > > in timer_resume to see if it goes away?
> > 
> > Worked like a charm.  I'm not seeing any time drift after your suggested 
> > change.
> 
> AIUI, this also means that a machine's uptime does not include time
> whilst suspended. This was the behaviour prior to 2.6.10 and seems to be
> more desirable as it counts the time the machine is actually running,
> not just time since boot. Is there a good reason why we can't go back to
> this?

I think it means very wrong system clock in ACPI state. Plus think
something wanting timeout of five minutes, then suspend one minute
after, machine sleeps for a hour.

With this approach, timeout should happen just after resume, with your
approach, it would wait 4 more minutes.

[Perhaps it needs to call lost_ticks or something like that.]

									Pavel
-- 
People were complaining that M$ turns users into beta-testers...
...jr ghea gurz vagb qrirybcref, naq gurl frrz gb yvxr vg gung jnl!
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/