From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dave Jones Subject: Re: Suspend to RAM regression tracked down Date: Sat, 8 Jul 2006 02:23:45 -0400 Message-ID: <20060708062345.GB3356@redhat.com> References: <1151837268.5358.10.camel@idefix.homelinux.org> <44A80B20.1090702@goop.org> <1152271537.5163.4.camel@idefix.homelinux.org> <20060707162152.GB3223@redhat.com> <1152312530.14453.16.camel@idefix.homelinux.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1152312530.14453.16.camel@idefix.homelinux.org> 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="iso-8859-1" To: Jean-Marc Valin Cc: cpufreq@lists.linux.org.uk, Jeremy Fitzhardinge , Linux Kernel On Sat, Jul 08, 2006 at 08:48:49AM +1000, Jean-Marc Valin wrote: > Le vendredi 07 juillet 2006 =E0 12:21 -0400, Dave Jones a =E9crit : > > On Fri, Jul 07, 2006 at 09:25:37PM +1000, Jean-Marc Valin wrote: > > > > There was a race in ondemand and conservative which made them loc= k up on=20 > > > > resume (possibly only on SMP systems though). There's a patch fo= r that=20 > > > > in current -mm, but I suspect there's another problem (still have= n't had=20 > > > > any time to track it down). > > >=20 > > > OK, I tried the patch with 2.6.17 and it didn't work. My laptop fai= led > > > to resume on the first try, so it must be something else. Could som= eone > > > actually have a look at the changes in 2.6.12-rc5-git6 (which happe= n to > > > be cpufreq-related)? I spend months pinpointing the problem to that > > > version (it's takes several days to reproduce). I'd appreciate if > > > someone could at least have a look at what changed there and maybe = fix > > > it. > >=20 > > Can you show /proc/cpuinfo for the affected system ? > > If it's 15/3/4 or 15/4/1, that would explain why this kernel, > > as this was when support for those models got introduced to > > speedstep-centrino. >=20 > Not sure what's the 15/..., but here's the content: it was the family, of which yours is 6, so this isn't it. which means it must be .. > > If it's not that, there is a pretty large delta in the ondemand > > governor in this update, but I don't see anything blindlingly > > obvious from looking over it. >=20 > Well, is there some way of doing a bisection over these changes? As far > as I know, the problem probably affects all Dell D600 owners, probably > others. If you're prepared to play around with 'git bisect' a little, it shouldn't take that many iterations, as you've already narrowed it down quite a lot. $ git bisect start drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_ondemand.c $ git bisect bad $ git bisect good v2.6.12-rc5 should get you most of the way there. http://www.kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-bisect.html has more info. Dave --=20 http://www.codemonkey.org.uk