Bhargava; Richard
> Cochran
> Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] timekeeping: Ignore the bogus sleep time if pm_trace
> is enabled
>
> On Thu, Nov 24, 2016 at 1:54 AM, Chen, Yu C wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> >> -Original Message-
> >> From: Ingo Molnar [m
Yu C; Rafael J. Wysocki; Xunlei Pang; Ingo Molnar; Len
>> Brown; H.
>> Peter Anvin; Pavel Machek; Thomas Gleixner; Prarit Bhargava; Richard Cochran
>> Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] timekeeping: Ignore the bogus sleep time if pm_trace
>> is enabled
>>
>>
>>
in; Pavel Machek; Thomas Gleixner; Prarit Bhargava; Richard Cochran
> Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] timekeeping: Ignore the bogus sleep time if pm_trace
> is enabled
>
>
> * John Stultz wrote:
>
> > +static int pm_trace_notify(struct notifier_block *nb,
> > +
* John Stultz wrote:
> +static int pm_trace_notify(struct notifier_block *nb,
> + unsigned long mode, void *_unused)
> +{
> + switch (mode) {
> + case PM_POST_HIBERNATION:
> + case PM_POST_SUSPEND:
> + if (pm_trace_rtc_abused) {
> +
From: Chen Yu
Previously we encountered some memory overflow issues due to
the bogus sleep time brought by inconsistent rtc, which is
triggered when pm_trace is enabled, and we have fixed it
in recent kernel. However it's improper in the first place
to call __timekeeping_inject_sleeptime() in cas
5 matches
Mail list logo