@@ -1972,11 +1972,11 @@ void timekeeping_resume(void)
int timekeeping_suspend(void)
{
- struct timekeeper *tk = &tk_core.timekeeper;
- unsigned long flags;
- struct timespec64 delta, delta_delta;
- static struct timespec64 old_delta;
+ struct timekeeper *tk = &tk_core.shadow_timekeeper;
+ struct timespec64 delta, delta_delta;
+ static struct timespec64 old_delta;
struct clocksource *curr_clock;
+ unsigned long flags;
u64 cycle_now;
read_persistent_clock64(&timekeeping_suspend_time);
@@ -1992,7 +1992,6 @@ int timekeeping_suspend(void)
suspend_timing_needed = true;
raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&tk_core.lock, flags);
- write_seqcount_begin(&tk_core.seq);
timekeeping_forward_now(tk);
timekeeping_suspended = 1;
@@ -2027,9 +2026,8 @@ int timekeeping_suspend(void)
}
}
- timekeeping_update(&tk_core, tk, TK_MIRROR);
+ timekeeping_update_staged(&tk_core, 0);
halt_fast_timekeeper(tk);
- write_seqcount_end(&tk_core.seq);
raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&tk_core.lock, flags);
tick_suspend();
Updates of the timekeeper can be done by operating on the shadow timekeeper and afterwards copying the result into the real timekeeper. This has the advantage, that the sequence count write protected region is kept as small as possible. While the sequence count held time is not relevant for the resume path as there is no concurrency, there is no reason to have this function different than all the other update sites. Convert timekeeping_inject_offset() to use this scheme and cleanup the variable declarations while at it. As halt_fast_timekeeper() does not need protection sequence counter, it is no problem to move it with this change outside of the sequence counter protected area. But it still needs to be executed while holding the lock. Signed-off-by: Anna-Maria Behnsen <anna-maria@linutronix.de> --- kernel/time/timekeeping.c | 12 +++++------- 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)