Re: [PATCH v2] pstore/ram: no timekeeping calls when unavailable

[Kees Cook]

On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 7:16 PM, John Stultz <johnstul@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Yea, I wanted to revisit this, because it is an odd case.
>
> We don't want to call getnstimeofday() while the timekeeping code is
> suspended, since the clocksource cycle_last value may be invalid if the
> hardware was reset during suspend.  Kees is correct,  the WARN_ONs were
> there to make sure no one tries to use the timekeeping core before its
> resumed, so removing them is problematic.
>
> Your sugggestion of having the __do_gettimeofday() internal accessor that
> maybe returns an error if timekeeping has been suspended could work.
>
> The other possibility is depending on the needs for accuracy with the
> timestamp, current_kernel_time() might be a better interface to use, since
> it will return the time at the last tick, and doesn't require accessing the
> clocksource hardware.  Might that be a simpler solution? Or is sub-tick
> granularity necessary?

I think it's only useful to have this to the same granularity as
sched_clock(), so things can be correlated to dmesg output. If it's
the same, I'd be fine to switch to using current_kernel_time().

-Kees

-- 
Kees Cook
Chrome OS Security
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/