In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Warner Losh writes:
>In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Poul-Henning Kamp writes:
>: If people do a "settimeofday" we change the boot time since the
>: amount of time we've been up *IS* known for sure, whereas the boottime
>: is only an estimate.
>
>There is one problem with this. The amount of uptime isn't the same
>as the amount of time since the machine booted. How can this happen?
>When a laptop suspends, it doesn't update the update while it is
>asleep, nor does it update the uptime by the amount of time that has
>been slept. IS this a bug in the apm code?
Well, I don't think anybody has seriously thought about what the right
semantics for APM is, and consequently the code we have is rather evil.
What to do is a definition question more than anything, and I guess the
answer to the question:
if I call timeout(bla bla bla, 3600*hz) and suspend the machine
for half an hour, how long time after it resumes will I be
called ?
will point the direction.
In other words:
Do routes expire while suspended ?
Do TCP timers tick ?
I would say "they sure should do, because they relates to external
events" (if we accept that as the answer we need to to call softclock
a LOT of times when we come out of suspend).
In reality we have not clear definition of "suspend" for a unix system,
and the kernel may need to learn about "timeouts on the kernel consious
timescale" vs. "timeouts on the wallclock timescale" and similar hair.
--
Poul-Henning Kamp FreeBSD coreteam member
[EMAIL PROTECTED] "Real hackers run -current on their laptop."
FreeBSD -- It will take a long time before progress goes too far!
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
