Hi Viresh: I have verified this patch, all the issues I reported disappeared. Thanks for the quick fix. Best Regards > -----Original Message----- > From: Viresh Kumar [mailto:viresh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2014 1:19 PM > To: rjw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > Cc: linaro-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; > arvind.chauhan@xxxxxxx; srivatsa@xxxxxxx; skannan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Bu, > Yitian; Viresh Kumar; Stable > Subject: [PATCH] cpufreq: move policy kobj to policy->cpu at resume > > This is only relevant to implementations with multiple clusters, where clusters > have separate clock lines but all CPUs within a cluster share it. > > Consider a dual cluster platform with 2 cores per cluster. During suspend we > start offlining CPUs from 1 to 3. When CPU2 is remove, policy->kobj would be > moved to CPU3 and when CPU3 goes down we wouldn't free policy or its kobj. > > Now on resume, we will get CPU2 before CPU3 and will call > __cpufreq_add_dev(). > We will recover the old policy and update policy->cpu from 3 to 2 from > update_policy_cpu(). > > But the kobj is still tied to CPU3 and wasn't moved to CPU2. We wouldn't create > a link for CPU2, but would try that while bringing CPU3 online. Which will > report errors as CPU3 already has kobj assigned to it. > > This bug got introduced with commit 42f921a, which overlooked this scenario. > > To fix this, lets move kobj to the new policy->cpu while bringing first CPU of a > cluster back. > > Fixes: ("42f921a cpufreq: remove sysfs files for CPUs which failed to come back > after resume") > Cc: Stable <stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> # 3.13+ > Reported-by: Bu Yitian <ybu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Reported-by: Saravana Kannan <skannan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxx> > --- > Hi Rafael, > > This is for 3.16 release, please take it once Yitian/Saravana test this out. > > @Yitian/Saravana: Sorry of overlooking this when both of you reported this first. > I (and Srivatsa as well) was damn sure that this scenario is taken into account in > current code and a close look proved that wrong. > > I couldn't test it out, can any of you please see if it fixes things for you? > > drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c | 6 ++++-- > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c index > 62259d2..6f02485 100644 > --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c > +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c > @@ -1153,10 +1153,12 @@ static int __cpufreq_add_dev(struct device *dev, > struct subsys_interface *sif) > * the creation of a brand new one. So we need to perform this update > * by invoking update_policy_cpu(). > */ > - if (recover_policy && cpu != policy->cpu) > + if (recover_policy && cpu != policy->cpu) { > update_policy_cpu(policy, cpu); > - else > + WARN_ON(kobject_move(&policy->kobj, &dev->kobj)); > + } else { > policy->cpu = cpu; > + } > > cpumask_copy(policy->cpus, cpumask_of(cpu)); > > -- > 2.0.0.rc2 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe stable" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html