[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       linux-kernel
Subject:    Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: Fix cpufreq regression after suspend/resume
From:       "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw () sisk ! pl>
Date:       2013-06-30 22:46:03
Message-ID: 19337614.Mnu5DqParj () vostro ! rjw ! lan
[Download RAW message or body]

On Monday, July 01, 2013 12:22:47 AM Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
> On 06/30/2013 10:35 PM, Toralf Förster wrote:
> > On 06/30/2013 06:33 PM, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
> >> Toralf, can you please
> >> try out the below patch and see if it improves anything? (Don't revert anything,
> >> just apply the below diff on a problematic kernel and see if it solves your
> >> issue).
> > 
> > applied on top of a66b2e5 - issue went away (either fixed or hidden now)
> > 
> 
> Cool! So here is the proper patch, with changelog added.
> 
> Regards,
> Srivatsa S. Bhat
> 
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> From: Srivatsa S. Bhat <srivatsa.bhat@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> Subject: [PATCH] cpufreq: Fix cpufreq regression after suspend/resume
> 
> Toralf Förster reported that the cpufreq ondemand governor behaves erratically
> (doesn't scale well) after a suspend/resume cycle. The problem was that the
> cpufreq subsystem's idea of the cpu frequencies differed from the actual
> frequencies set in the hardware after a suspend/resume cycle. Toralf bisected
> the problem to commit a66b2e5 (cpufreq: Preserve sysfs files across
> suspend/resume).
> 
> Among other (harmless) things, that commit skipped the call to
> cpufreq_update_policy() in the resume path. But cpufreq_update_policy() plays
> an important role during resume, because it is responsible for checking if
> the BIOS changed the cpu frequencies behind our back and resynchronize the
> cpufreq subsystem's knowledge of the cpu frequencies, and update them
> accordingly.
> 
> So, restore the call to cpufreq_update_policy() in the resume path to fix
> the cpufreq regression.
> 
> Reported-by: Toralf Förster <toralf.foerster@gmx.de>
> Tested-by: Toralf Förster <toralf.foerster@gmx.de>
> Signed-off-by: Srivatsa S. Bhat <srivatsa.bhat@linux.vnet.ibm.com>

Thanks Srivatsa, I'll queue it up as 3.11 (and 3.10-stable) material.

Thanks,
Rafael


> ---
> 
>  drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_stats.c |    1 +
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_stats.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_stats.c
> index fb65dec..591b6fb 100644
> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_stats.c
> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_stats.c
> @@ -349,6 +349,7 @@ static int __cpuinit cpufreq_stat_cpu_callback(struct notifier_block *nfb,
>  
>  	switch (action) {
>  	case CPU_ONLINE:
> +	case CPU_ONLINE_FROZEN:
>  		cpufreq_update_policy(cpu);
>  		break;
>  	case CPU_DOWN_PREPARE:
> 
> 
-- 
I speak only for myself.
Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]