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? In any case I think I'll leave the machine running S3 cycles over the weekend with the 25ms timeout just to see if it will eventually fail. -- Ville Syrjälä Intel OTC -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arch" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
