On Fri, Jul 13, 2018 at 12:13 AM, Mukesh Ojha <mo...@codeaurora.org> wrote:
> Hi John,
>
> Thanks for your response
> Please find my comments inline.
>
>
> On 7/11/2018 1:43 AM, John Stultz wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Jul 6, 2018 at 6:17 AM, Mukesh Ojha <mo...@codeaurora.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> Currently, there exists a corner case assuming when there is
>>> only one clocksource e.g RTC, and system failed to go to
>>> suspend mode. While resume rtc_resume() injects the sleeptime
>>> as timekeeping_rtc_skipresume() returned 'false' (default value
>>> of sleeptime_injected) due to which we can see mismatch in
>>> timestamps.
>>>
>>> This issue can also come in a system where more than one
>>> clocksource are present and very first suspend fails.
>>>
>>> Fix this by handling `sleeptime_injected` flag properly.
>>>
>>> Success case:
>>> ------------
>>> {sleeptime_injected=false}
>>> rtc_suspend() => timekeeping_suspend() => timekeeping_resume() =>
>>>
>>> (sleeptime injected)
>>> rtc_resume()
>>>
>>> Failure case:
>>> ------------
>>> {failure in sleep path} {sleeptime_injected=false}
>>> rtc_suspend() => rtc_resume()
>>>
>>> sleeptime injected again which was not required as the suspend failed)
>>>
>>> Originally-by: Thomas Gleixner <t...@linutronix.de>
>>> Signed-off-by: Mukesh Ojha <mo...@codeaurora.org>
>>> ---
>>> Changes in v3:
>>> * Updated commit subject and description.
>>> * Updated the patch as per the fix given by Thomas Gleixner.
>>>
>>> Changes in v2:
>>> * Updated the commit text.
>>> * Removed extra variable and used the earlier static
>>> variable 'sleeptime_injected'.
>>>
>>> kernel/time/timekeeping.c | 21 ++++++++++++++++++---
>>> 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/kernel/time/timekeeping.c b/kernel/time/timekeeping.c
>>> index 4786df9..32ae9ae 100644
>>> --- a/kernel/time/timekeeping.c
>>> +++ b/kernel/time/timekeeping.c
>>> @@ -1510,8 +1510,20 @@ void __weak read_boot_clock64(struct timespec64
>>> *ts)
>>> ts->tv_nsec = 0;
>>> }
>>>
>>> -/* Flag for if timekeeping_resume() has injected sleeptime */
>>> -static bool sleeptime_injected;
>>> +/*
>>> + * Flag reflecting whether timekeeping_resume() has injected sleeptime.
>>> + *
>>> + * The flag starts of true and is only cleared when a suspend reaches
>>> + * timekeeping_suspend(), timekeeping_resume() sets it when the
>>> timekeeper
>>> + * clocksource is not stopping across suspend and has been used to
>>> update
>>> + * sleep time. If the timekeeper clocksource has stopped then the flag
>>> + * stays false and is used by the RTC resume code to decide whether
>>> sleep
>>> + * time must be injected and if so the flag gets set then.
>>> + *
>>> + * If a suspend fails before reaching timekeeping_resume() then the flag
>>> + * stays true and prevents erroneous sleeptime injection.
>>> + */
>>> +static bool sleeptime_injected = true;
>>
>> I worry this upside-down logic is too subtle to be easily reasoned
>> about, and will just lead to future mistakes.
>>
>> Can we instead call this "suspend_timing_needed" and only set it to
>> true when we don't inject any sleep time on resume?
>
>
> I did not get your point "only set it to true when we don't inject any sleep
> time on resume? "
> How do we know this ?
> This question itself depends on the "sleeptime_injected" if it is true means
> no need to inject else need to inject.
>
> Also, we need to make this variable back and forth true, false; suspends
> path ensures it to make it false.
So yea, I'm not saying logically the code is really any different,
this is more of a naming nit. So instead of having a variable that is
always on that we occasionally turn off, lets invert the naming and
have it be a flag that we occasionally turn on.
Just the name sleeptime_injected is read a statement, which if we say
is defaults to true, becomes confusing to think about when the
timekeeping_suspend/resume code hasn't yet run (which is the case
where your error cropped up) - and no sleeptime has actually been
injected.
So instead if we call it suspend_timing_needed and only set it on in
timekeeping_resume() after the timekeeping code has not injected any
sleep-time, then I think the code will make more sense to read. (And
yes, we still need to set suspend_timing_needed false on
timekeeping_suspend and in the inject_sleeptime call path - the logic
doesn't change, just the naming and boolean state).
thanks
-john
