From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge Subject: Re: ondemand vs suspend. Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2006 15:52:59 -0700 Message-ID: <44972ACB.2040609@goop.org> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: cpufreq-bounces@lists.linux.org.uk Errors-To: cpufreq-bounces+glkc-cpufreq=m.gmane.org+glkc-cpufreq=m.gmane.org@lists.linux.org.uk Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed" To: "Pallipadi, Venkatesh" Cc: Dave Jones , pjones@redhat.com, cpufreq@lists.linux.org.uk Pallipadi, Venkatesh wrote: > Yes. I am able to reproduce this 2.6.17-rc6 and trying to narrow it > down. > > Also, there is a known issue with ondemand and resuming anyway as the > second CPU will not be able to resume with ondemand, but instead will go > back to 'default' governor on initialization. > So, even with this bug fixed, we cannot suspend-resume with ondemand > governor. Workaround for now can be just to switch to default governor > before suspend and go back to ondemand after resume, using initscripts. > I've noticed another problem, which may be related. Sometimes after resume, cpufreq seems to lose the ability to control the CPU speeds: they stay at the lowest performance level, and don't change regardless of what governor I set. I'm seeing this on a T2400 Core Duo. I'm not sure if this is a speedfreq-centrino problem or cpufreq itself. J