On 24 March 2013 17:19, Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@xxxxxxx> wrote: > On Sun, 24 Mar 2013 15:32:39 +0530 Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> Hmm.. Can you try one thing? Run 3.8 over your machine and give >> output of cpufreq-info and ls -ld after boot and resume.. >> >> I would like to see what's the original behavior. > > Good idea! =:^) It now appears that your bug simply cascaded on a > previously unreported bug in earlier kernels. That made me happy, i am not the only culprit :) > The 3.8 pre-suspend and post resume ls -dl are identical -- no missing > dirs (and no symlinks): > > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu0/cpufreq/ > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu1/cpufreq/ > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu2/cpufreq/ > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu3/cpufreq/ > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu4/cpufreq/ > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu5/cpufreq/ They were all separate directories (instead of symlinks) earlier because this only depended on policy->cpus earlier. And none of the cpus are shared in policy->cpus, i.e. policy->cpus was always policy->cpu. > 3.8 pre-suspend cpufreq-info excerpts (nicely paired, as are the > pre-patch pre-suspend results for 3.9-rc): No they are still not paired well. This is how we should read your analysis: related-cpus: "same hardware freq" affected-cpus or policy->cpus: "frequency coordinated by software" > analyzing CPU 0: > CPUs which run at the same hardware frequency: 0 1 related cpus have correct pairs > CPUs which need to have their frequency coordinated by software: 0 but affected cpus doesn't > 3.8 post-resume (screwed up pairing, so that bit's not a 3.9 thing I told you earlier, this made me happy :) > analyzing CPU 0: > CPUs which run at the same hardware frequency: 0 1 > CPUs which need to have their frequency coordinated by software: 0 > analyzing CPU 1: > CPUs which run at the same hardware frequency: 0 1 > CPUs which need to have their frequency coordinated by software: 1 These stayed as is as cpu 0 is non removable cpu and so doesn't get unregistered from cpufreq at all. > analyzing CPU 2: > CPUs which run at the same hardware frequency: 2 > CPUs which need to have their frequency coordinated by software: 2 > analyzing CPU 3: > CPUs which run at the same hardware frequency: 3 > CPUs which need to have their frequency coordinated by software: 3 > analyzing CPU 4: > CPUs which run at the same hardware frequency: 2 4 related cpus got corrupted here. > CPUs which need to have their frequency coordinated by software: 4 > analyzing CPU 5: > CPUs which run at the same hardware frequency: 3 5 > CPUs which need to have their frequency coordinated by software: 5 Now back to the real issues: @Rafael/Borislav/Thomas/Andre/Darrick: "What do we mean by software AND hardware coordination for x86 ?" Following are the sha-id's which had something to do with above statement. 3b2d99429e3386b6e2ac949fc72486509c8bbe36 46f18e3a28295a9e11a6ffa4478241c19bc93735 acd316248205d553594296f1895ba5196b89ffcc e8628dd06d66f2e3965ec9742029b401d63434f1 8adcc0c674004c0f9467031a93dc639c2b01411f On the platform i work (ARM) there are only two cases, cpus share clock line or they don't. So, they share policy struct or they don't. Fixing Duncan's issues shouldn't be a very big deal now as i was thinking too much about what was broken without my patches too. And now that part is pretty clear. -- viresh -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe cpufreq" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
