On Wed, Nov 02, 2016 at 04:47:37AM +0800, Ville Syrjälä wrote: > On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 08:58:41PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > On Fri, 28 Oct 2016, Ville Syrjälä wrote: > > > On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 10:41:18PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > > > On Thu, 27 Oct 2016, Ville Syrjälä wrote: > > > > > On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 09:25:05PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > > > > > So it would be interesting whether that hunk in resume_broadcast() is > > > > > > sufficient. > > > > > > > > > > So far it looks like the answer is yes. > > > > > > > > > > Looks to be about 5 seconds slower than acpi-idle in resuming, but > > > > > I suppose that's not all that surprising ;) > > > > > > > > Well, set it to 1msec then. If that works reliably then we really can do > > > > that unconditionally. There is no harm in firing a useless timer during > > > > resume once. > > > > > > I narrowed down the required timeout, and looks like 25ms is the > > > minimum that works. With 24ms I already started to have failures. So > > > maybe just bump it up by an order of magnitude to 250ms for some > > > safety margin? > > I left the thing running for the weekend and it failed 26 out of 16057 > times with the 25ms timeout. Looks like it takes ~5 minutes to resume > when it fails, but eventually it does come back. > Just came back from a travel. Yes, the 5 minutes delay may be due to the expiration of the HPET timer, counting from 0 to 0xffffffff for a 13M frequencey HPET takes about 300 seconds. After resume, it seems nobody arms it so my old patch forces to arm one event. Thanks, Feng -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
