On Tuesday, July 16, 2013 05:15:14 PM Toralf Förster wrote: > 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.
I think you'll need the fixes first, basically [1/8] from this series and this: https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/2827512/ . Please try to run with these two things applied only and see how that goes. Thanks, Rafael -- I speak only for myself. Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center. -- 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/
