On 09/12/2013 10:55 AM, Viresh Kumar wrote: > With a recent change the logic here is changed a bit and I just figured out it > is something we don't want. > > Consider we have four CPUs (0,1,2,3) managed by a policy and policy->cpu is set > to 0. Now we are suspending and hence we call __cpufreq_remove_dev_prepare() for > cpu 1, 2 & 3.. > > With the current code we always call cpufreq_nominate_new_policy_cpu() for cpu > 1, 2 & 3 whereas we should skipped most of __cpufreq_remove_dev_prepare() > routine. > > Lets fix it by moving the check for !frozen inside the first if block. > As you noted in the other thread, Rafael already applied my patch[1] which does the same thing. So I guess you'll drop this patch from your series. [1].http://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/rafael/linux-pm.git/commit/?h=bleeding-edge&id=61173f256 Regards, Srivatsa S. Bhat > Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxx> > --- > drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c | 5 +++-- > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c > index 5e0a82e..0e11fcb 100644 > --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c > +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c > @@ -1182,8 +1182,9 @@ static int __cpufreq_remove_dev_prepare(struct device *dev, > cpumask_clear_cpu(cpu, policy->cpus); > unlock_policy_rwsem_write(cpu); > > - if (cpu != policy->cpu && !frozen) { > - sysfs_remove_link(&dev->kobj, "cpufreq"); > + if (cpu != policy->cpu) { > + if (!frozen) > + sysfs_remove_link(&dev->kobj, "cpufreq"); > } else if (cpus > 1) { > new_cpu = cpufreq_nominate_new_policy_cpu(policy, cpu, frozen); > if (new_cpu >= 0) { > -- 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
