On 12 November 2013 20:41, Nishanth Menon <nm@xxxxxx> wrote:
> On 11/12/2013 12:03 AM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
>> Yes the problem looks real but there are issues with this patch.
>> - It doesn't solve your problem completely, because you returned -EBUSY,
>> your suspend operation failed and we resumed immediately.
>
> Seems like there was an error handling miss somewhere - for some
> reason, it did suspend properly.
Yeah, its missing in cpufreq_cpu_callback()..
>> But I think the problem can/should be solved some other way.. Looking closely,
>> we got to the problem because we called
>>
>> __cpufreq_governor(policy, CPUFREQ_GOV_START)
>>
>> at the first place. This happened because the policy structure had more than
>> one cpu to take care of and after stopping goveronr for CPU1 it has to start it
>> again for CPU0... But this is really not required as anyway we are going to
>> suspend.
>>
>> Can you try attached patch? I will then repost it formally...
>
> I tried a equivalent of this for v3.12 tag:
> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> index 04548f7..9ec243c 100644
> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> @@ -1186,7 +1186,7 @@ static int __cpufreq_remove_dev_prepare(struct
> device *dev,
> return -EINVAL;
> }
>
> - if (cpufreq_driver->target) {
> + if (cpufreq_driver->target && (!frozen ||
> policy->governor_enabled)) {
> ret = __cpufreq_governor(policy, CPUFREQ_GOV_STOP);
> if (ret) {
> pr_err("%s: Failed to stop governor\n", __func__);
> @@ -1252,7 +1252,7 @@ static int __cpufreq_remove_dev_finish(struct
> device *dev,
>
> /* If cpu is last user of policy, free policy */
> if (cpus == 1) {
> - if (cpufreq_driver->target) {
> + if (cpufreq_driver->target && !frozen) {
> ret = __cpufreq_governor(policy,
> CPUFREQ_GOV_POLICY_EXIT);
This is not an equivalent of my patch :)
@@ -1282,7 +1282,7 @@ static int __cpufreq_remove_dev_finish(struct device *dev,
if (!frozen)
cpufreq_policy_free(policy);
} else {
- if (has_target()) {
+ if (has_target() && !frozen) {
if ((ret = __cpufreq_governor(policy,
CPUFREQ_GOV_START)) ||
(ret =
__cpufreq_governor(policy, CPUFREQ_GOV_LIMITS))) {
> And I see http://pastebin.mozilla.org/3528478
>
> with a WARN patch for generating call stack.
that's why you got it.. I was really surprised to see it just didn't
worked for you
and believe me it took me a lot of time understanding how isn't it
working for u.
Because I simply believed on your equivalent version and didn't looked at it
closely :)
> Finally squelched warnings with a net diff (v3.12) of
> http://pastebin.mozilla.org/3546062
we don't need that stuff in cpufreq_add_policy_cpu()
> However, ondemand is no longer functioning on resume (governor needs a
> start after being unfrozen.. and obviously by avoiding that entirely
> in frozen case.. not sure if I missed any other)..
It would be, try the right code once. :)
--
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
