On Sun, 24 Mar 2013 17:53:41 +0530 Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 24 March 2013 17:46, Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > 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. > > Hi Duncan, > > Try attached patch and this should take back your system to where it > was. > > NOTE: With this patch your related_cpus wouldn't show any groups and > related cpus must be same as affected cpus. All cpu*/cpufreq must be > directories now and no symlinks. FWIW, with this patch, pre-s2ram and post-resume are indeed consistent, but it's not back to where it was. With this patch, each core is a cpufreq law unto itself. Maybe that's what you meant with the note, maybe not (I know the mapping of sysfs files to cpufreq-info output was stated up-thread, but I lost track, and how affected vs related maps to hardware vs software coordinated and what it all actually means other than what I'm seeing isn't ideal, is apparently a bit more than I'm able to keep in my head ATM), but it's what I get. The relevant bits of cpufreq-info output: analyzing CPU 0: CPUs which run at the same hardware frequency: 0 CPUs which need to have their frequency coordinated by software: 0 analyzing CPU 1: CPUs which run at the same hardware frequency: 1 CPUs which need to have their frequency coordinated by software: 1 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: 4 CPUs which need to have their frequency coordinated by software: 4 analyzing CPU 5: CPUs which run at the same hardware frequency: 5 CPUs which need to have their frequency coordinated by software: 5 But at least it's consistent: The same results both before and after a suspend/resume cycle. And given that 3.8 wasn't ideal either, maybe that's good enough for this cycle, and a real fix will have to wait until the next commit window and stable-tree. That'd give us more leeway to fix it right, as well as a full cycle for testing anything else the "correct" fix might dredge up. -- Duncan - No HTML messages please, as they are filtered as spam. "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman -- 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
