[ 78/79] timekeeping: Correct run-time detection of persistent_clock.

From: Greg Kroah-Hartman
Date: Tue Jun 11 2013 - 16:04:36 EST

3.9-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know.


From: Zoran Markovic <zoran.markovic@xxxxxxxxxx>

commit 0d6bd9953f739dad96d9a0de65383e479ab4e10d upstream.

Since commit 31ade30692dc9680bfc95700d794818fa3f754ac, timekeeping_init()
checks for presence of persistent clock by attempting to read a non-zero
time value. This is an issue on platforms where persistent_clock (instead
is implemented as a free-running counter (instead of an RTC) starting
from zero on each boot and running during suspend. Examples are some ARM
platforms (e.g. PandaBoard).

An attempt to read such a clock during timekeeping_init() may return zero
value and falsely declare persistent clock as missing. Additionally, in
the above case suspend times may be accounted twice (once from
timekeeping_resume() and once from rtc_resume()), resulting in a gradual
drift of system time.

This patch does a run-time correction of the issue by doing the same check
during timekeeping_suspend().

A better long-term solution would have to return error when trying to read
non-existing clock and zero when trying to read an uninitialized clock, but
that would require changing all persistent_clock implementations.

This patch addresses the immediate breakage, for now.

Signed-off-by: Zoran Markovic <zoran.markovic@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: John Stultz <john.stultz@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Feng Tang <feng.tang@xxxxxxxxx>
[jstultz: Tweaked commit message and subject]
Signed-off-by: John Stultz <john.stultz@xxxxxxxxxx>
[zoran.markovic@xxxxxxxxxx: reworked patch to fit 3.9-stable.]
Signed-off-by: Zoran Markovic <zoran.markovic@xxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

kernel/time/timekeeping.c | 8 ++++++++
1 file changed, 8 insertions(+)

--- a/kernel/time/timekeeping.c
+++ b/kernel/time/timekeeping.c
@@ -826,6 +826,14 @@ static int timekeeping_suspend(void)


+ /*
+ * On some systems the persistent_clock can not be detected at
+ * timekeeping_init by its return value, so if we see a valid
+ * value returned, update the persistent_clock_exists flag.
+ */
+ if (timekeeping_suspend_time.tv_sec || timekeeping_suspend_time.tv_nsec)
+ persistent_clock_exist = true;
write_seqlock_irqsave(&tk->lock, flags);
timekeeping_suspended = 1;

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/