On 07/05/2013 06:35 AM, Viresh Kumar wrote: > I assume that you have applied the patch given by Srivatsa earlier over > these reverts? yes > But I now also suspect that this might have been caused by something > outside cpufreq. +1 At least the likelihood is big and the "saving" to narrow down bisecting just to the cpufreq patch is small compared to the "cost" of the risk of an unwanted side effect. OTOH not sure when I find a time frame for the bisect nightmare. That's why I tweaked my s2ram script in this way: + if [[ "$1" = "mem" && "$(uname -r)" = "3.10.0" ]]; then + echo " tweak governor ..." + for g in performance ondemand; do + for i in 0 1 2 3; do + echo $g > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu$i/cpufreq/scaling_governor + done + done + echo 1 > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpufreq/ondemand/ignore_nice + fi -- 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 cpufreq" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
