On 07/16/2013 11:32 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > 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 > > That was it.
Applying https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/2827512/ and then patch [1/8] on top of v3.11-rc1-8-g47188d3 works fine and solved the reported issue. Furthermore applying patches 2-8 works too - suspend/wakeup works fine and frequencies are scaled right after wakeup at the T420. Thx -- 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/
