On 07/12/2013 12:23 AM, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote: > On 07/12/2013 04:03 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >> On Friday, July 12, 2013 03:45:17 AM Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote: >>> >>> Hi, >> >> Hi, >> >>> Commit a66b2e (cpufreq: Preserve sysfs files across suspend/resume) caused >>> some subtle regressions in the cpufreq subsystem during suspend/resume. >>> This patchset is aimed at rectifying those problems, by fixing the >>> regression >>> as well as achieving the original goal of that commit in a proper way. >>> >>> Patch 1 reverts the above commit, and is CC'ed to stable. >>> >>> Patches 2 - 5 reorganize the code and have no functional impact, and can go >>> in as general cleanups as well. This reorganization builds a base that the >>> rest of the patches will make use of. >>> >>> Patch 6 and 7 add a mechanism to perform light-weight init/tear-down of CPUs >>> in the cpufreq subsystem and finally patch 8 uses it to preserve sysfs files >>> across suspend/resume. >>> >>> All the patches apply on current mainline. >>> >>> >>> Robert, Durgadoss, it would be great if you could try it out and see if it >>> works >>> well for your usecase. I tested it locally and cpufreq related files did >>> retain >>> their permissions across suspend/resume. Let me know if it works fine in >>> your >>> setup too. >>> >>> And I'd of course appreciate to hear from Dirk, Tianyu and Toralf to know >>> whether their systems work fine after: >>> a. applying only the first commit (this is what gets backported to stable) >>> b. applying all the commits >>> >>> (Note: I had to use Michael's fix[1] to avoid CPU hotplug deadlock while >>> testing this patchset. Though that patch also touches cpufreq subsystem, it >>> doesn't affect this patchset in any way and there is absolutely no >>> dependency >>> between the two in terms of code. That fix just makes basic CPU hotplug work >>> without locking up on current mainline). >>> >>> [1]. https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/7/10/611 >>> >>> >>> Thank you very much! >> >> Thanks Srivatsa! >> >> I'm going to take [1/8] for 3.11 and queue up the rest for 3.12 if people >> don't >> hate them. This way we'll have some more testing coverage before they reach >> the mainline hopefully. >>
On 07/16/2013 01:25 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:> On Monday, July 15, 2013 07:38:02 PM Toralf Förster wrote: > Sorry, I have no idea what 1#8 means. sry - here again with full quote of the email : I applied patch [1/8] on top of v3.11-rc1-8-g47188d3 passes two s2ram/wakeup cycles fine and crashed the system at the 3rd attempt / one times just at the 4th (blinking power led, no sysrq, ...). Applying patch 1-8 on top of that tree differs in that way that it crashes now the system even at the 1st attempt or at least at the 2nd My hardware is a ThinkPad T420 with latest BIOS and a 32 bit stable Gentoo Linux - FWIW .config attached. > > Sounds great! Thanks a lot Rafael! > > Regards, > Srivatsa S. Bhat > > -- MfG/Sincerely Toralf Förster pgp finger print: 7B1A 07F4 EC82 0F90 D4C2 8936 872A E508 7DB6 9DA3 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
