Re: [Bug 55411] sysfs per-cpu cpufreq subdirs/symlinks screwed up after s2ram

Re: [Bug 55411] sysfs per-cpu cpufreq subdirs/symlinks screwed up after s2ram

[Viresh Kumar]

Hi Guys,

We are talking here about a bug reported by Duncan here. His cpu/cpu*/cpufreq
directory are getting corrupted with 3.9-rc3 and was working well with 3.8

https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=55411

On his AMD bulldozer tri-cluster/6-core system he doesn't see affected
and related
cpus set correctly after off-lining 1-5 and bringing them back with:

for i in 1 2 3 4 5; do echo 0 > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu$i/online ; done
for i in 1 2 3 4 5; do echo 1 > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu$i/online ; done

Before running above two, cpufreq-info gave:
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/attachment.cgi?id=95701

And after running above it gave:
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/attachment.cgi?id=95711

Clearly it got corrupted. Somehow cpu 3 showed up in related cpus field of
cpu 5.

I suspect following patches behind this:

commit fcf8058296edbc3de43adf095824fc32b067b9f8
Author: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Date:   Tue Jan 29 14:39:08 2013 +0000

    cpufreq: Simplify cpufreq_add_dev()

    Currently cpufreq_add_dev() firsts allocates policy, calls
    driver->init() and then checks if this CPU is already managed or not.
    And if it is already managed, its policy is freed.

    We can save all this if we somehow know that CPU is managed or not in
    advance.  policy->related_cpus contains the list of all valid sibling
    CPUs of policy->cpu. We can check this to see if the current CPU is
    already managed.

    From now on, platforms don't really need to set related_cpus from
    their init() routines, as the same work is done by core too.

    If a platform driver needs to set the related_cpus mask with some
    additional CPUs, other than CPUs present in policy->cpus, they are
    free to do it, though, as we don't override anything.

    [rjw: Changelog]
    Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
    Tested-by: Shawn Guo <shawn.guo@linaro.org>
    Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>


AND

commit 643ae6e81dd65b333a13259852405fc9f764ac76
Author: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Date:   Sat Jan 12 05:14:38 2013 +0000

    cpufreq: Manage only online cpus

    cpufreq core doesn't manage offline cpus and if driver->init() has returned
    mask including offline cpus, it may result in unwanted behavior by
cpufreq core
    or governors.

    We need to get only online cpus in this mask. There are two places
to fix this
    mask, cpufreq core and cpufreq driver. It makes sense to do this
at common place
    and hence is done in core.

    Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
    Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>


And this is the latest piece of documentation available:

SMP systems normally have same clock source for a group of cpus. For these the
.init() would be called only once for the first online cpu. Here the .init()
routine must initialize policy->cpus with mask of all possible cpus (Online +
Offline) that share the clock. Then the core would copy this mask onto
policy->related_cpus and will reset policy->cpus to carry only online cpus.


I saw acpi-cpufreq drivers driver->init() code and found it is not yet
aligned to this
theory and probably that is causing these failures.

I don't have enough knowledge about this driver and how is it used for all x86
systems and so want somebody else (who has some prior experience with it)
to check how policy->cpus and policy->related_cpus must be set from
driver->init().

--
viresh

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From:  <bugzilla-daemon@bugzilla.kernel.org>
Date: 19 March 2013 13:19
Subject: [Bug 55411] sysfs per-cpu cpufreq subdirs/symlinks screwed up
after s2ram
To: viresh.kumar@linaro.org


https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=55411

--- Comment #9 from Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@cox.net>  2013-03-19 07:49:53 ---
(In reply to comment #8)
> (In reply to comment #0)
>> After a s2ram/resume cycle (now bad):
>>
>> /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu0/cpufreq/
>> /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu1/cpufreq -> ../cpu0/cpufreq/
>> /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu3/cpufreq/
>> /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu5/cpufreq/
>
> Can you try this rather than s2r:
>
> for i in 1 2 3 4 5; do echo 0 > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu$i/online ; done
> for i in 1 2 3 4 5; do echo 1 > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu$i/online ; done
>
> and check the status if things are still corrupted for you?

> Above doesn't corrupt anything for me Atleast.

That's a nice easy test; no rebuild and reboot needed. =:^)

Tho I had to change the > to >| as I have bash noclobber set and the files
obviously already exist...

Uncorrupted before the test, corrupted after.  So just cycling the cpus off and
then back online *DOES* corrupt cpufreq, thus a much simpler reproducer! =:^)
Exact same ls results as the above.

> And my system doesn't have S2R support for now.

My old system didn't support s2ram reliably; it would work occasionally but
mostly it didn't.  But s2disk was workable for awhile, until the fact that I
was running mdraid and the disks didn't always return in the same sdX slots due
to hardware wakeup issues complicated things, so eventually I didn't use that
much either.  The new system's great with s2ram, sans this bug of course;
s2disk didn't work at all at first, but last time I tried it /almost/ worked so
there has been improvement.  But I don't like to take unnecessary chances with
filesystem log replay and thankfully wall power's good enough around here that
I can s2ram for a day and come back and wiggle the mouse and all's fine (with a
couple pre-suspend syncs thrown into my script just in case), so I tend to use
it a LOT, even more than I'd use s2disk due to the speed. =:^)

But I'd love to have s2both working reliably; for all I know it's actually
working now; it was pretty close.  But I prefer not to test the reiserfs log
replay (even with pre-suspend syncs I worry, tho as I said reiserfs has
actually been very good to me even thru faulty ram, a power supply blowing up
on me, a mobo dying, etc, since 2.6.16 or whenever it was that it got ordered
journaling by default) when it doesn't work, so knowing s2disk didn't work well
when I tested it and with s2ram working SO well, I don't tend to test
s2disk/s2both too often.


Meanwhile, thanks for the cpuinfo_cur_freq explanation.  If that actually
real-time touches the hardware to get the data as you say, that does explain
the root privs.  Maybe that bit of extra info could be added to the
documentation?  I could propose some new wording and open a new bug on
cpu-freq/user-guide.txt for it if appropriate.

--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.

Re: [Bug 55411] sysfs per-cpu cpufreq subdirs/symlinks screwed up after s2ram

[Rafael J. Wysocki]

[Adding Boris and Thomas to the CC.]

On Tuesday, March 19, 2013 02:20:06 PM Viresh Kumar wrote:
> Hi Guys,
> 
> We are talking here about a bug reported by Duncan here. His cpu/cpu*/cpufreq
> directory are getting corrupted with 3.9-rc3 and was working well with 3.8
> 
> https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=55411
> 
> On his AMD bulldozer tri-cluster/6-core system he doesn't see affected
> and related
> cpus set correctly after off-lining 1-5 and bringing them back with:
> 
> for i in 1 2 3 4 5; do echo 0 > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu$i/online ; done
> for i in 1 2 3 4 5; do echo 1 > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu$i/online ; done
> 
> Before running above two, cpufreq-info gave:
> https://bugzilla.kernel.org/attachment.cgi?id=95701
> 
> And after running above it gave:
> https://bugzilla.kernel.org/attachment.cgi?id=95711
> 
> Clearly it got corrupted. Somehow cpu 3 showed up in related cpus field of
> cpu 5.
> 
> I suspect following patches behind this:
> 
> commit fcf8058296edbc3de43adf095824fc32b067b9f8
> Author: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
> Date:   Tue Jan 29 14:39:08 2013 +0000
> 
>     cpufreq: Simplify cpufreq_add_dev()
> 
>     Currently cpufreq_add_dev() firsts allocates policy, calls
>     driver->init() and then checks if this CPU is already managed or not.
>     And if it is already managed, its policy is freed.
> 
>     We can save all this if we somehow know that CPU is managed or not in
>     advance.  policy->related_cpus contains the list of all valid sibling
>     CPUs of policy->cpu. We can check this to see if the current CPU is
>     already managed.
> 
>     From now on, platforms don't really need to set related_cpus from
>     their init() routines, as the same work is done by core too.
> 
>     If a platform driver needs to set the related_cpus mask with some
>     additional CPUs, other than CPUs present in policy->cpus, they are
>     free to do it, though, as we don't override anything.
> 
>     [rjw: Changelog]
>     Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
>     Tested-by: Shawn Guo <shawn.guo@linaro.org>
>     Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
> 
> 
> AND
> 
> commit 643ae6e81dd65b333a13259852405fc9f764ac76
> Author: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
> Date:   Sat Jan 12 05:14:38 2013 +0000
> 
>     cpufreq: Manage only online cpus
> 
>     cpufreq core doesn't manage offline cpus and if driver->init() has returned
>     mask including offline cpus, it may result in unwanted behavior by
> cpufreq core
>     or governors.
> 
>     We need to get only online cpus in this mask. There are two places
> to fix this
>     mask, cpufreq core and cpufreq driver. It makes sense to do this
> at common place
>     and hence is done in core.
> 
>     Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
>     Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
> 
> 
> And this is the latest piece of documentation available:
> 
> SMP systems normally have same clock source for a group of cpus. For these the
> .init() would be called only once for the first online cpu. Here the .init()
> routine must initialize policy->cpus with mask of all possible cpus (Online +
> Offline) that share the clock. Then the core would copy this mask onto
> policy->related_cpus and will reset policy->cpus to carry only online cpus.
> 
> 
> I saw acpi-cpufreq drivers driver->init() code and found it is not yet
> aligned to this
> theory and probably that is causing these failures.
> 
> I don't have enough knowledge about this driver and how is it used for all x86
> systems and so want somebody else (who has some prior experience with it)
> to check how policy->cpus and policy->related_cpus must be set from
> driver->init().

OK, so what exactly do you need to now?

This has to be addressed before final 3.9 this way or another - and the sooner
the better.

Thanks,
Rafael


-- 
I speak only for myself.
Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center.

Re: [Bug 55411] sysfs per-cpu cpufreq subdirs/symlinks screwed up after s2ram

[Viresh Kumar]

On 22 March 2013 17:47, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@sisk.pl> wrote:
> OK, so what exactly do you need to now?

s/now/know ??

We just need to set policy->cpus with all cpus (online or offline) that
share clock line with cpu for which init() is called.

cpufreq core with then set all those cpus onto related cpus and will
keep only online cpus in policy->cpus..

Sorry if i haven't answered it well :(

Re: [Bug 55411] sysfs per-cpu cpufreq subdirs/symlinks screwed up after s2ram

[Rafael J. Wysocki]

On Friday, March 22, 2013 05:45:29 PM Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 22 March 2013 17:47, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@sisk.pl> wrote:
> > OK, so what exactly do you need to now?
> 
> s/now/know ??

Yes, sorry.

Re: [Bug 55411] sysfs per-cpu cpufreq subdirs/symlinks screwed up after s2ram

[Borislav Petkov]

On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 02:12:50PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Friday, March 22, 2013 05:45:29 PM Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > On 22 March 2013 17:47, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@sisk.pl> wrote:
> > > OK, so what exactly do you need to now?
> > 
> > s/now/know ??
> 
> Yes, sorry.

Right, I heard about this breakage on Bulldozer and I can repro it here
too :(.

Which is not good and it needs to be fixed ASAP. From looking at the
patches in question, this should be reproducible on everything, though,
since it is generic cpufreq code. And if so, this makes the urgency of a
fix much more dire.

Thanks.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

Sent from a fat crate under my desk. Formatting is fine.
--

Re: [Bug 55411] sysfs per-cpu cpufreq subdirs/symlinks screwed up after s2ram

[Thomas Renninger]

On Friday, March 22, 2013 01:17:18 PM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> [Adding Boris and Thomas to the CC.]
> 
...
> > I don't have enough knowledge about this driver and how is it used for all
> > x86 systems and so want somebody else (who has some prior experience with
> > it) to check how policy->cpus and policy->related_cpus must be set from
> > driver->init().
> 
> OK, so what exactly do you need to now?
> 
> This has to be addressed before final 3.9 this way or another - and the
> sooner the better.

Is this all to try to fix "cpufreq driver gets loaded while some cores
were set offline before"?

I wonder how you run into "cpufreq is initialized with offlined cpus" case.
I remember that there were problems, but it's nearly impossible to run
into this if the cpufreq driver is loaded early at boot.

cpufreq_add_dev() and friends are complicated.
Those init functions got split some time ago and there also slipped
in a bug even it was simple splitting of functions.

I do not have time to look at fcf8058296edbc3de43adf095824fc32b067b9f8
right now. Don't know how much other stuff depends on it and how
sever it is on ARM that cpufreq does not correctly initialize with offlined
cpus..., I would revert this patch.

There are other cpu related drivers (at least on x86) which cannot
initialize correctly if the CPUs got offlined before driver init.
Obviously this is not a clever thing to do.

   Thomas

Re: [Bug 55411] sysfs per-cpu cpufreq subdirs/symlinks screwed up after s2ram

[Viresh Kumar]

Hi guys,

I will answer to questions of both of you in this mail.

On 22 March 2013 18:23, Thomas Renninger <trenn@suse.de> wrote:
> Is this all to try to fix "cpufreq driver gets loaded while some cores
> were set offline before"?

Not really. There are problems with acpi-cpufreq without that case too.

> I wonder how you run into "cpufreq is initialized with offlined cpus" case.
> I remember that there were problems, but it's nearly impossible to run
> into this if the cpufreq driver is loaded early at boot.

I always thought there is a way not to boot all cpus by passing stuff in
command line and so this is a easy case to reproduce.

> cpufreq_add_dev() and friends are complicated.

Not anymore, they are hugely simplified now.

> Those init functions got split some time ago and there also slipped
> in a bug even it was simple splitting of functions.
>
> I do not have time to look at fcf8058296edbc3de43adf095824fc32b067b9f8
> right now. Don't know how much other stuff depends on it and how
> sever it is on ARM that cpufreq does not correctly initialize with offlined
> cpus..., I would revert this patch.

Let me clear it to everybody. There isn't/shouldn't be a bug in cpufreq core,
its just that acpi-cpufreq driver isn't adapted well with the changes related to
affected_cpus and related_cpus.

I have never gone into coding for any non-ARM platform and am really not
aware of acpi-cpufreq driver and its users. That's why i told everybody where
the issue is, and they just need to fix acpi-cpufreq driver with right values of
policy->cpus (affected_cpus) and everything else would work after that.

--
viresh

Re: [Bug 55411] sysfs per-cpu cpufreq subdirs/symlinks screwed up after s2ram

[Borislav Petkov]

On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 07:13:33PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> I have never gone into coding for any non-ARM platform and am
> really not aware of acpi-cpufreq driver and its users. That's why
> i told everybody where the issue is, and they just need to fix
> acpi-cpufreq driver with right values of policy->cpus (affected_cpus)
> and everything else would work after that.

No, you're breaking existing drivers with your changes - nobody will fix
stuff *you're* breaking.

You need to get the hardware and test your changes on *that* hardware
too. Otherwise, the offending patches should be reverted until you can
provide a patchset which works on everything.

Geez, the fact that I even need to explain this...

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

Sent from a fat crate under my desk. Formatting is fine.
--

Re: [Bug 55411] sysfs per-cpu cpufreq subdirs/symlinks screwed up after s2ram

[Viresh Kumar]

On 22 March 2013 19:24, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de> wrote:
> No, you're breaking existing drivers with your changes - nobody will fix
> stuff *you're* breaking.
>
> You need to get the hardware and test your changes on *that* hardware
> too. Otherwise, the offending patches should be reverted until you can
> provide a patchset which works on everything.
>
> Geez, the fact that I even need to explain this...

You are right in every sense and i can't defend myself on that, no excuse.

When i wrote those patches, i fixed many drivers and wasn't aware that
acpi-cpufreq got broken. And only with the mail from Duncan i realized it.

Then i tried to go thorough it & fix it and found there is some stuff in init()
which is is sort of per user case dependent. And wasn't sure how exactly
to fix it and so shouted for help.

But yes i will give it another try to go through the driver in details and see
if i can fix it.

--
viresh

Re: [Bug 55411] sysfs per-cpu cpufreq subdirs/symlinks screwed up after s2ram

[Borislav Petkov]

On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 07:35:19PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> But yes i will give it another try to go through the driver in details
> and see if i can fix it.

Right, and make sure it is a minimal fix which can go in now. If it
appears to get more involved, we'd probably need to revert now and you
can retry next merge window.

Thanks.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

Sent from a fat crate under my desk. Formatting is fine.
--

Re: [Bug 55411] sysfs per-cpu cpufreq subdirs/symlinks screwed up after s2ram

[Thomas Renninger]

On Friday, March 22, 2013 07:13:33 PM Viresh Kumar wrote:
> Hi guys,
> 
> I will answer to questions of both of you in this mail.
> 
> On 22 March 2013 18:23, Thomas Renninger <trenn@suse.de> wrote:
> > Is this all to try to fix "cpufreq driver gets loaded while some cores
> > were set offline before"?
> 
> Not really. There are problems with acpi-cpufreq without that case too.
> 
> > I wonder how you run into "cpufreq is initialized with offlined cpus"
> > case.
> > I remember that there were problems, but it's nearly impossible to run
> > into this if the cpufreq driver is loaded early at boot.
> 
> I always thought there is a way not to boot all cpus by passing stuff in
> command line and so this is a easy case to reproduce.
I am pretty sure cpuidle states won't initialize and in best case you never
get them working on the offlined cpus.
Local APICs won't be set up, ...

Such a parameter will never exist for x86.

> > cpufreq_add_dev() and friends are complicated.
> 
> Not anymore, they are hugely simplified now.
They were hugely simplified and things are not working anymore and you
do not know why...

> > Those init functions got split some time ago and there also slipped
> > in a bug even it was simple splitting of functions.
> > 
> > I do not have time to look at fcf8058296edbc3de43adf095824fc32b067b9f8
> > right now. Don't know how much other stuff depends on it and how
> > sever it is on ARM that cpufreq does not correctly initialize with
> > offlined
> > cpus..., I would revert this patch.
> 
> Let me clear it to everybody. There isn't/shouldn't be a bug in cpufreq
> core, its just that acpi-cpufreq driver isn't adapted well with the changes
> related to affected_cpus and related_cpus.
And powernow-k8 driver is broken.
The others are not tested that often, I expect they broke as well, right?
 
> I have never gone into coding for any non-ARM platform and am really not
> aware of acpi-cpufreq driver and its users. That's why i told everybody
> where the issue is, and they just need to fix acpi-cpufreq driver with
> right values of policy->cpus (affected_cpus) and everything else would work
> after that.

Sorry, I cannot look into this due to lack of time, but I remember that
there were reasons why cpufreq_add_dev() was complicated.
Or that it's really easy to mess it up and it's not easy to fix it again.

     Thomas

Re: [Bug 55411] sysfs per-cpu cpufreq subdirs/symlinks screwed up after s2ram

[Viresh Kumar]

On 22 March 2013 19:34, Thomas Renninger <trenn@suse.de> wrote:
> I am pretty sure cpuidle states won't initialize and in best case you never
> get them working on the offlined cpus.
> Local APICs won't be set up, ...
>
> Such a parameter will never exist for x86.

I will see if i can find what i was referring to here.

> They were hugely simplified and things are not working anymore and you
> do not know why...

I know why, but don't know (for now) how to fix it for acpi-cpufreq.

> And powernow-k8 driver is broken.
> The others are not tested that often, I expect they broke as well, right?

acpi-cpufreq is broken and so all others who are using it. Sorry for asking
the stupid question now but what's the hierarchy of cpufreq drivers for intel
(I will try to go through it now), some drivers use acpi-cpufreq driver?

> Sorry, I cannot look into this due to lack of time, but I remember that
> there were reasons why cpufreq_add_dev() was complicated.
> Or that it's really easy to mess it up and it's not easy to fix it again.

Its not cpufreq_add_dev() that is broken but some changes that were part
of the same patch, i.e. part that tried to sort out affected and related cpus.

Re: [Bug 55411] sysfs per-cpu cpufreq subdirs/symlinks screwed up after s2ram

[Borislav Petkov]

On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 07:40:45PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> acpi-cpufreq is broken and so all others who are using it. Sorry for
> asking the stupid question now but what's the hierarchy of cpufreq
> drivers for intel (I will try to go through it now), some drivers use
> acpi-cpufreq driver?

All relevant x86 out there uses acpi-cpufreq. Which means that breaking
it, breaks cpufreq on x86. Which is absolutely a no-no.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

Sent from a fat crate under my desk. Formatting is fine.
--

Re: [Bug 55411] sysfs per-cpu cpufreq subdirs/symlinks screwed up after s2ram

[Thomas Renninger]

On Friday, March 22, 2013 03:04:03 PM Thomas Renninger wrote:
> On Friday, March 22, 2013 07:13:33 PM Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > Hi guys,
> > 
> > I will answer to questions of both of you in this mail.
> > 
> > On 22 March 2013 18:23, Thomas Renninger <trenn@suse.de> wrote:
> > > Is this all to try to fix "cpufreq driver gets loaded while some cores
> > > were set offline before"?
> > 
> > Not really. There are problems with acpi-cpufreq without that case too.
> > 
> > > I wonder how you run into "cpufreq is initialized with offlined cpus"
> > > case.
> > > I remember that there were problems, but it's nearly impossible to run
> > > into this if the cpufreq driver is loaded early at boot.
> > 
> > I always thought there is a way not to boot all cpus by passing stuff in
> > command line and so this is a easy case to reproduce.
> 
> I am pretty sure cpuidle states won't initialize and in best case you never
> get them working on the offlined cpus.
> Local APICs won't be set up, ...
> 
> Such a parameter will never exist for x86.
I take that back.
CPU hot-add (even if CPU is not present at boot time) works.
I looked at C-states for that some time ago and it should only work if
the hot-add event came in via ACPI events for CPUs which were not
initialized at boot time. Better would be to initialize the first time it
gets switched online.
Anyway, making such stuff (cpufreq/cpuidle/...) more robust,
is certainly a good idea.

...
> And powernow-k8 driver is broken.
> The others are not tested that often, I expect they broke as well, right?
And powernow-k8 does not exist anymore..., fortunately I didn't have to
look at this stuff for some time.

... 
> Sorry, I cannot look into this due to lack of time,...


       Thomas

Re: [Bug 55411] sysfs per-cpu cpufreq subdirs/symlinks screwed up after s2ram

[Viresh Kumar]

On 24 March 2013 14:35, Thomas Renninger <trenn@suse.de> wrote:
> I take that back.
> CPU hot-add (even if CPU is not present at boot time) works.
> I looked at C-states for that some time ago and it should only work if
> the hot-add event came in via ACPI events for CPUs which were not
> initialized at boot time. Better would be to initialize the first time it
> gets switched online.

I removed it from my TODO list, thanks :)

> Anyway, making such stuff (cpufreq/cpuidle/...) more robust,
> is certainly a good idea.

Yes, that was the basic intent of my earlier patches that went into 3.9.
It was all about simplifying it and making it robust.

> And powernow-k8 does not exist anymore..., fortunately I didn't have to
> look at this stuff for some time.

Sure? Driver is still present in mainline.

BTW, i have given an initial fix for acpi-cpufreq (which should work)
and waiting
for Duncan to reply back. All other drivers don't set affected/related
cpus directly,
so they should be alright.

--
viresh

Re: [Bug 55411] sysfs per-cpu cpufreq subdirs/symlinks screwed up after s2ram

[Viresh Kumar]

Hi Duncan,

Please reply to this mail rather than using bugzilla as all others might not
be following bugzilla rerport.

> --- Comment #31 from Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@cox.net>  2013-03-24 09:48:41 ---
> (In reply to comment #28)
>> My weekend is already spoiled (due to my bugs :) ) and i don't want to spoil
>> yours.
>
> Don't worry about it.  They're all days in the week, to me.  I don't really
> have a defined "weekend".  In fact, I had been (somewhat impatiently) grumbling
> to myself Friday that I was likely to have to wait until Monday for something
> concrete to test, so I'm happy to be demonstrated wrong! =:^)

:)

>> [PATCH] cpufreq: acpi-cpufreq: Set policy->cpus correctly from .init()
>
> You appear to be on the right path as all the dirs and symlinks are there now,
> but it looks like you'll need a v2 as the order/pairing is now very strange,
> both as booted and after a s2ram/resume (which changes the order but it's still
> strange):

:(

> Testing against 3.9-rc4 now.
>
> Patch applied pre-suspend ls -dl as above (original pairing is 0/1, 2/3, 4/5,
> with the first always a dir and the second always a symlink to the first, as
> seen in comment #0):
>
> /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu0/cpufreq/
> /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu1/cpufreq -> ../cpu0/cpufreq/
> /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu2/cpufreq/
> /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu3/cpufreq/
> /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu4/cpufreq -> ../cpu3/cpufreq/
> /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu5/cpufreq -> ../cpu2/cpufreq/

The way it works (in cpufreq core), the first cpu of group registered
for cpufreq
would get a directory and second one would get a symlink.

And the above ones also doesn't look good. 2/5 and 3/4 shouldn't be the groups.

acpi-cpufreq driver is getting this information from perf->shared_cpu_map and
that seems to be wrong to me now.

> Post s2ram/resume cycle:
>
> /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu0/cpufreq/
> /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu1/cpufreq -> ../cpu0/cpufreq/
> /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu2/cpufreq -> ../cpu4/cpufreq/
> /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu3/cpufreq -> ../cpu5/cpufreq/
> /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu4/cpufreq/
> /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu5/cpufreq/

2/4 and 3/5 are also wrong groups.

> But I don't know whether it's CPU ordering that's weird, or the cpufreq
> ordering.  IOW, I don't know whether it /should/ be 0/1, 2/3, 4/5 or not,
> because I don't know whether those numbers actually reflect the hardware so
> it's the ordering above that's bad, or if the cpu numbers are just arbitrarily
> assigned, and the ordering above reflects the actual hardware, and just looks
> strange due to the arbitrary cpu numbering.

One thing i am sure about is cpu order is fixed at boot and after boot whatever
you do can't change that order... So order should always be 0/1, 2/3, 4/5

> Either way, there's the correct number of dirs and links now, but the ordering
> is extremely confusing and looks wrong, regardless of whether it actually
> corresponds to the hardware or not, something I don't have the ability to
> judge.

Hmm.. Can you try one thing? Run 3.8 over your machine and give output of
cpufreq-info and ls -ld after boot and resume..

I would like to see what's the original behavior.

--
viresh

Re: [Bug 55411] sysfs per-cpu cpufreq subdirs/symlinks screwed up after s2ram

[Duncan]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3662 bytes --]

On Sun, 24 Mar 2013 15:32:39 +0530
Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> wrote:

> Hi Duncan,
> 
> Please reply to this mail rather than using bugzilla as all others
> might not be following bugzilla rerport.

Thanks.  I'm used to it being the other way 'round.

> >> [PATCH] cpufreq: acpi-cpufreq: Set policy->cpus correctly
> >> from .init()
> >
> > You appear to be on the right path as all the dirs and symlinks are
> > there now, but it looks like you'll need a v2 as the order/pairing
> > is now very strange, both as booted and after a s2ram/resume (which
> > changes the order but it's still strange):

> Hmm.. Can you try one thing? Run 3.8 over your machine and give
> output of cpufreq-info and ls -ld after boot and resume..
> 
> I would like to see what's the original behavior.

Good idea! =:^)  It now appears that your bug simply cascaded on a
previously unreported bug in earlier kernels.

The 3.8 ls -dl isn't too interesting as they were all dirs not symlinks
then, and if they hadn't stuck around after a suspend/resume I'd have
definitely noticed and reported the bug back then, but it's still
useful to confirm.

The 3.8 pre-suspend and post resume ls -dl are identical -- no missing
dirs (and no symlinks):

/sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu0/cpufreq/
/sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu1/cpufreq/
/sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu2/cpufreq/
/sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu3/cpufreq/
/sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu4/cpufreq/
/sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu5/cpufreq/

The interesting results are the 3.8 cpufreq-info.  I'll attach the full
output, but here's the interesting bit:

3.8 pre-suspend cpufreq-info excerpts (nicely paired, as are the
pre-patch pre-suspend results for 3.9-rc):

analyzing CPU 0:
  CPUs which run at the same hardware frequency: 0 1
  CPUs which need to have their frequency coordinated by software: 0
analyzing CPU 1:
  CPUs which run at the same hardware frequency: 0 1
  CPUs which need to have their frequency coordinated by software: 1
analyzing CPU 2:
  CPUs which run at the same hardware frequency: 2 3
  CPUs which need to have their frequency coordinated by software: 2
analyzing CPU 3:
  CPUs which run at the same hardware frequency: 2 3
  CPUs which need to have their frequency coordinated by software: 3
analyzing CPU 4:
  CPUs which run at the same hardware frequency: 4 5
  CPUs which need to have their frequency coordinated by software: 4
analyzing CPU 5:
  CPUs which run at the same hardware frequency: 4 5
  CPUs which need to have their frequency coordinated by software: 5

3.8 post-resume (screwed up pairing, so that bit's not a 3.9 thing, I
just noticed it in 3.9 due to the now missing symlinks/dirs):

analyzing CPU 0:
  CPUs which run at the same hardware frequency: 0 1
  CPUs which need to have their frequency coordinated by software: 0
analyzing CPU 1:
  CPUs which run at the same hardware frequency: 0 1
  CPUs which need to have their frequency coordinated by software: 1
analyzing CPU 2:
  CPUs which run at the same hardware frequency: 2
  CPUs which need to have their frequency coordinated by software: 2
analyzing CPU 3:
  CPUs which run at the same hardware frequency: 3
  CPUs which need to have their frequency coordinated by software: 3
analyzing CPU 4:
  CPUs which run at the same hardware frequency: 2 4
  CPUs which need to have their frequency coordinated by software: 4
analyzing CPU 5:
  CPUs which run at the same hardware frequency: 3 5
  CPUs which need to have their frequency coordinated by software: 5

-- 
Duncan - No HTML messages please, as they are filtered as spam.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master."  Richard Stallman

[-- Attachment #2: cpufreq-info.3.8.pre --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 4366 bytes --]

cpufrequtils 008: cpufreq-info (C) Dominik Brodowski 2004-2009
Report errors and bugs to cpufreq@vger.kernel.org, please.
analyzing CPU 0:
  driver: acpi-cpufreq
  CPUs which run at the same hardware frequency: 0 1
  CPUs which need to have their frequency coordinated by software: 0
  maximum transition latency: 4.0 us.
  hardware limits: 1.40 GHz - 3.60 GHz
  available frequency steps: 3.60 GHz, 3.00 GHz, 2.40 GHz, 1.80 GHz, 1.40 GHz
  available cpufreq governors: conservative, performance
  current policy: frequency should be within 1.40 GHz and 3.60 GHz.
                  The governor "conservative" may decide which speed to use
                  within this range.
  current CPU frequency is 1.40 GHz.
  cpufreq stats: 3.60 GHz:0.00%, 3.00 GHz:0.20%, 2.40 GHz:0.16%, 1.80 GHz:0.20%, 1.40 GHz:99.44%  (4)
analyzing CPU 1:
  driver: acpi-cpufreq
  CPUs which run at the same hardware frequency: 0 1
  CPUs which need to have their frequency coordinated by software: 1
  maximum transition latency: 4.0 us.
  hardware limits: 1.40 GHz - 3.60 GHz
  available frequency steps: 3.60 GHz, 3.00 GHz, 2.40 GHz, 1.80 GHz, 1.40 GHz
  available cpufreq governors: conservative, performance
  current policy: frequency should be within 1.40 GHz and 3.60 GHz.
                  The governor "conservative" may decide which speed to use
                  within this range.
  current CPU frequency is 1.40 GHz.
  cpufreq stats: 3.60 GHz:0.03%, 3.00 GHz:0.14%, 2.40 GHz:0.18%, 1.80 GHz:0.35%, 1.40 GHz:99.29%  (6)
analyzing CPU 2:
  driver: acpi-cpufreq
  CPUs which run at the same hardware frequency: 2 3
  CPUs which need to have their frequency coordinated by software: 2
  maximum transition latency: 4.0 us.
  hardware limits: 1.40 GHz - 3.60 GHz
  available frequency steps: 3.60 GHz, 3.00 GHz, 2.40 GHz, 1.80 GHz, 1.40 GHz
  available cpufreq governors: conservative, performance
  current policy: frequency should be within 1.40 GHz and 3.60 GHz.
                  The governor "conservative" may decide which speed to use
                  within this range.
  current CPU frequency is 1.40 GHz.
  cpufreq stats: 3.60 GHz:0.00%, 3.00 GHz:0.15%, 2.40 GHz:0.15%, 1.80 GHz:0.17%, 1.40 GHz:99.54%  (4)
analyzing CPU 3:
  driver: acpi-cpufreq
  CPUs which run at the same hardware frequency: 2 3
  CPUs which need to have their frequency coordinated by software: 3
  maximum transition latency: 4.0 us.
  hardware limits: 1.40 GHz - 3.60 GHz
  available frequency steps: 3.60 GHz, 3.00 GHz, 2.40 GHz, 1.80 GHz, 1.40 GHz
  available cpufreq governors: conservative, performance
  current policy: frequency should be within 1.40 GHz and 3.60 GHz.
                  The governor "conservative" may decide which speed to use
                  within this range.
  current CPU frequency is 1.40 GHz.
  cpufreq stats: 3.60 GHz:0.04%, 3.00 GHz:0.11%, 2.40 GHz:0.22%, 1.80 GHz:0.18%, 1.40 GHz:99.45%  (4)
analyzing CPU 4:
  driver: acpi-cpufreq
  CPUs which run at the same hardware frequency: 4 5
  CPUs which need to have their frequency coordinated by software: 4
  maximum transition latency: 4.0 us.
  hardware limits: 1.40 GHz - 3.60 GHz
  available frequency steps: 3.60 GHz, 3.00 GHz, 2.40 GHz, 1.80 GHz, 1.40 GHz
  available cpufreq governors: conservative, performance
  current policy: frequency should be within 1.40 GHz and 3.60 GHz.
                  The governor "conservative" may decide which speed to use
                  within this range.
  current CPU frequency is 1.40 GHz.
  cpufreq stats: 3.60 GHz:0.00%, 3.00 GHz:0.17%, 2.40 GHz:0.30%, 1.80 GHz:0.20%, 1.40 GHz:99.34%  (4)
analyzing CPU 5:
  driver: acpi-cpufreq
  CPUs which run at the same hardware frequency: 4 5
  CPUs which need to have their frequency coordinated by software: 5
  maximum transition latency: 4.0 us.
  hardware limits: 1.40 GHz - 3.60 GHz
  available frequency steps: 3.60 GHz, 3.00 GHz, 2.40 GHz, 1.80 GHz, 1.40 GHz
  available cpufreq governors: conservative, performance
  current policy: frequency should be within 1.40 GHz and 3.60 GHz.
                  The governor "conservative" may decide which speed to use
                  within this range.
  current CPU frequency is 1.40 GHz.
  cpufreq stats: 3.60 GHz:0.00%, 3.00 GHz:0.22%, 2.40 GHz:0.15%, 1.80 GHz:0.30%, 1.40 GHz:99.33%  (4)

[-- Attachment #3: cpufreq-info.3.8.post --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 4362 bytes --]

cpufrequtils 008: cpufreq-info (C) Dominik Brodowski 2004-2009
Report errors and bugs to cpufreq@vger.kernel.org, please.
analyzing CPU 0:
  driver: acpi-cpufreq
  CPUs which run at the same hardware frequency: 0 1
  CPUs which need to have their frequency coordinated by software: 0
  maximum transition latency: 4.0 us.
  hardware limits: 1.40 GHz - 3.60 GHz
  available frequency steps: 3.60 GHz, 3.00 GHz, 2.40 GHz, 1.80 GHz, 1.40 GHz
  available cpufreq governors: conservative, performance
  current policy: frequency should be within 1.40 GHz and 3.60 GHz.
                  The governor "conservative" may decide which speed to use
                  within this range.
  current CPU frequency is 1.40 GHz.
  cpufreq stats: 3.60 GHz:0.00%, 3.00 GHz:0.04%, 2.40 GHz:0.03%, 1.80 GHz:0.04%, 1.40 GHz:99.89%  (6)
analyzing CPU 1:
  driver: acpi-cpufreq
  CPUs which run at the same hardware frequency: 0 1
  CPUs which need to have their frequency coordinated by software: 1
  maximum transition latency: 4.0 us.
  hardware limits: 1.40 GHz - 3.60 GHz
  available frequency steps: 3.60 GHz, 3.00 GHz, 2.40 GHz, 1.80 GHz, 1.40 GHz
  available cpufreq governors: conservative, performance
  current policy: frequency should be within 1.40 GHz and 3.60 GHz.
                  The governor "conservative" may decide which speed to use
                  within this range.
  current CPU frequency is 1.40 GHz.
  cpufreq stats: 3.60 GHz:0.00%, 3.00 GHz:0.00%, 2.40 GHz:0.08%, 1.80 GHz:0.04%, 1.40 GHz:99.88%  (3)
analyzing CPU 2:
  driver: acpi-cpufreq
  CPUs which run at the same hardware frequency: 2
  CPUs which need to have their frequency coordinated by software: 2
  maximum transition latency: 4.0 us.
  hardware limits: 1.40 GHz - 3.60 GHz
  available frequency steps: 3.60 GHz, 3.00 GHz, 2.40 GHz, 1.80 GHz, 1.40 GHz
  available cpufreq governors: conservative, performance
  current policy: frequency should be within 1.40 GHz and 3.60 GHz.
                  The governor "conservative" may decide which speed to use
                  within this range.
  current CPU frequency is 1.40 GHz.
  cpufreq stats: 3.60 GHz:0.00%, 3.00 GHz:0.00%, 2.40 GHz:0.00%, 1.80 GHz:0.76%, 1.40 GHz:99.24%  (2)
analyzing CPU 3:
  driver: acpi-cpufreq
  CPUs which run at the same hardware frequency: 3
  CPUs which need to have their frequency coordinated by software: 3
  maximum transition latency: 4.0 us.
  hardware limits: 1.40 GHz - 3.60 GHz
  available frequency steps: 3.60 GHz, 3.00 GHz, 2.40 GHz, 1.80 GHz, 1.40 GHz
  available cpufreq governors: conservative, performance
  current policy: frequency should be within 1.40 GHz and 3.60 GHz.
                  The governor "conservative" may decide which speed to use
                  within this range.
  current CPU frequency is 1.40 GHz.
  cpufreq stats: 3.60 GHz:0.00%, 3.00 GHz:0.04%, 2.40 GHz:0.04%, 1.80 GHz:0.15%, 1.40 GHz:99.77%  (4)
analyzing CPU 4:
  driver: acpi-cpufreq
  CPUs which run at the same hardware frequency: 2 4
  CPUs which need to have their frequency coordinated by software: 4
  maximum transition latency: 4.0 us.
  hardware limits: 1.40 GHz - 3.60 GHz
  available frequency steps: 3.60 GHz, 3.00 GHz, 2.40 GHz, 1.80 GHz, 1.40 GHz
  available cpufreq governors: conservative, performance
  current policy: frequency should be within 1.40 GHz and 3.60 GHz.
                  The governor "conservative" may decide which speed to use
                  within this range.
  current CPU frequency is 1.40 GHz.
  cpufreq stats: 3.60 GHz:0.02%, 3.00 GHz:0.03%, 2.40 GHz:0.02%, 1.80 GHz:0.21%, 1.40 GHz:99.71%  (4)
analyzing CPU 5:
  driver: acpi-cpufreq
  CPUs which run at the same hardware frequency: 3 5
  CPUs which need to have their frequency coordinated by software: 5
  maximum transition latency: 4.0 us.
  hardware limits: 1.40 GHz - 3.60 GHz
  available frequency steps: 3.60 GHz, 3.00 GHz, 2.40 GHz, 1.80 GHz, 1.40 GHz
  available cpufreq governors: conservative, performance
  current policy: frequency should be within 1.40 GHz and 3.60 GHz.
                  The governor "conservative" may decide which speed to use
                  within this range.
  current CPU frequency is 1.40 GHz.
  cpufreq stats: 3.60 GHz:0.00%, 3.00 GHz:0.04%, 2.40 GHz:0.03%, 1.80 GHz:0.12%, 1.40 GHz:99.81%  (4)

Re: [Bug 55411] sysfs per-cpu cpufreq subdirs/symlinks screwed up after s2ram

[Viresh Kumar]

On 24 March 2013 17:19, Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@cox.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Mar 2013 15:32:39 +0530 Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> wrote:

>> Hmm.. Can you try one thing? Run 3.8 over your machine and give
>> output of cpufreq-info and ls -ld after boot and resume..
>>
>> I would like to see what's the original behavior.
>
> Good idea! =:^)  It now appears that your bug simply cascaded on a
> previously unreported bug in earlier kernels.

That made me happy, i am not the only culprit :)

> The 3.8 pre-suspend and post resume ls -dl are identical -- no missing
> dirs (and no symlinks):
>
> /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu0/cpufreq/
> /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu1/cpufreq/
> /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu2/cpufreq/
> /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu3/cpufreq/
> /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu4/cpufreq/
> /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu5/cpufreq/

They were all separate directories (instead of symlinks) earlier because
this only depended on policy->cpus earlier. And none of the cpus are
shared in policy->cpus, i.e. policy->cpus was always policy->cpu.

> 3.8 pre-suspend cpufreq-info excerpts (nicely paired, as are the
> pre-patch pre-suspend results for 3.9-rc):

No they are still not paired well. This is how we should read your analysis:
related-cpus: "same hardware freq"
affected-cpus or policy->cpus: "frequency coordinated by software"

> analyzing CPU 0:
>   CPUs which run at the same hardware frequency: 0 1

related cpus have correct pairs

>   CPUs which need to have their frequency coordinated by software: 0

but affected cpus doesn't

> 3.8 post-resume (screwed up pairing, so that bit's not a 3.9 thing

I told you earlier, this made me happy :)

> analyzing CPU 0:
>   CPUs which run at the same hardware frequency: 0 1
>   CPUs which need to have their frequency coordinated by software: 0
> analyzing CPU 1:
>   CPUs which run at the same hardware frequency: 0 1
>   CPUs which need to have their frequency coordinated by software: 1

These stayed as is as cpu 0 is non removable cpu and so doesn't get
unregistered from cpufreq at all.

> analyzing CPU 2:
>   CPUs which run at the same hardware frequency: 2
>   CPUs which need to have their frequency coordinated by software: 2
> analyzing CPU 3:
>   CPUs which run at the same hardware frequency: 3
>   CPUs which need to have their frequency coordinated by software: 3
> analyzing CPU 4:
>   CPUs which run at the same hardware frequency: 2 4

related cpus got corrupted here.

>   CPUs which need to have their frequency coordinated by software: 4
> analyzing CPU 5:
>   CPUs which run at the same hardware frequency: 3 5
>   CPUs which need to have their frequency coordinated by software: 5


Now back to the real issues:

@Rafael/Borislav/Thomas/Andre/Darrick:

"What do we mean by software AND hardware coordination for x86 ?"

Following are the sha-id's which had something to do with above statement.

3b2d99429e3386b6e2ac949fc72486509c8bbe36
46f18e3a28295a9e11a6ffa4478241c19bc93735
acd316248205d553594296f1895ba5196b89ffcc
e8628dd06d66f2e3965ec9742029b401d63434f1
8adcc0c674004c0f9467031a93dc639c2b01411f

On the platform i work (ARM) there are only two cases, cpus share clock line or
they don't. So, they share policy struct or they don't.


Fixing Duncan's issues shouldn't be a very big deal now as i was thinking too
much about what was broken without my patches too. And now that part is
pretty clear.

--
viresh

Re: [Bug 55411] sysfs per-cpu cpufreq subdirs/symlinks screwed up after s2ram

[Viresh Kumar]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 510 bytes --]

On 24 March 2013 17:46, Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> wrote:
> Fixing Duncan's issues shouldn't be a very big deal now as i was thinking too
> much about what was broken without my patches too. And now that part is
> pretty clear.

Hi Duncan,

Try attached patch and this should take back your system to where it was.

NOTE: With this patch your related_cpus wouldn't show any groups and
related cpus must be same as affected cpus. All cpu*/cpufreq must be
directories now and no symlinks.

--
viresh

[-- Attachment #2: 0001-cpufreq-acpi-cpufreq-Don-t-set-policy-related_cpus-f.patch --]
[-- Type: application/octet-stream, Size: 1935 bytes --]

From 0eb6a6ce25c71e60dc69e1897f80b7ce3bb41fb2 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
Message-Id: <0eb6a6ce25c71e60dc69e1897f80b7ce3bb41fb2.1364127667.git.viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
From: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2013 23:42:44 +0530
Subject: [PATCH] cpufreq: acpi-cpufreq: Don't set policy->related_cpus from
 .init()

With the addition of following patch:

fcf8058 cpufreq: Simplify cpufreq_add_dev()

cpufreq driver's .init() routine must initialize policy->cpus with mask of all
possible cpus (Online + Offline) that share the clock. Then the core would copy
this mask onto policy->related_cpus and will reset policy->cpus to carry only
online cpus.

acpi-cpufreq driver wasn't updated with this assumption and so sometimes when
we try to hot[un]plug cpus at run time, sysfs directories gets corrupted.

This patch fixes acpi-cpufreq driver against this corruption.

Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
---
 drivers/cpufreq/acpi-cpufreq.c | 2 --
 1 file changed, 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/acpi-cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/acpi-cpufreq.c
index afbef9c..11b8b4b 100644
--- a/drivers/cpufreq/acpi-cpufreq.c
+++ b/drivers/cpufreq/acpi-cpufreq.c
@@ -723,7 +723,6 @@ static int acpi_cpufreq_cpu_init(struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
 	    policy->shared_type == CPUFREQ_SHARED_TYPE_ANY) {
 		cpumask_copy(policy->cpus, perf->shared_cpu_map);
 	}
-	cpumask_copy(policy->related_cpus, perf->shared_cpu_map);
 
 #ifdef CONFIG_SMP
 	dmi_check_system(sw_any_bug_dmi_table);
@@ -735,7 +734,6 @@ static int acpi_cpufreq_cpu_init(struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
 	if (check_amd_hwpstate_cpu(cpu) && !acpi_pstate_strict) {
 		cpumask_clear(policy->cpus);
 		cpumask_set_cpu(cpu, policy->cpus);
-		cpumask_copy(policy->related_cpus, cpu_sibling_mask(cpu));
 		policy->shared_type = CPUFREQ_SHARED_TYPE_HW;
 		pr_info_once(PFX "overriding BIOS provided _PSD data\n");
 	}
-- 
1.7.12.rc2.18.g61b472e

Re: [Bug 55411] sysfs per-cpu cpufreq subdirs/symlinks screwed up after s2ram

[Duncan]

On Sun, 24 Mar 2013 17:53:41 +0530
Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> wrote:

> On 24 March 2013 17:46, Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> wrote:
> > Fixing Duncan's issues shouldn't be a very big deal now as i was
> > thinking too much about what was broken without my patches too. And
> > now that part is pretty clear.
> 
> Hi Duncan,
> 
> Try attached patch and this should take back your system to where it
> was.
> 
> NOTE: With this patch your related_cpus wouldn't show any groups and
> related cpus must be same as affected cpus. All cpu*/cpufreq must be
> directories now and no symlinks.

FWIW, with this patch, pre-s2ram and post-resume are indeed consistent,
but it's not back to where it was.

With this patch, each core is a cpufreq law unto itself.  Maybe that's
what you meant with the note, maybe not (I know the mapping of sysfs
files to cpufreq-info output was stated up-thread, but I lost track,
and how affected vs related maps to hardware vs software coordinated
and what it all actually means other than what I'm seeing isn't ideal,
is apparently a bit more than I'm able to keep in my head ATM), but it's
what I get. The relevant bits of cpufreq-info output:

analyzing CPU 0:
  CPUs which run at the same hardware frequency: 0
  CPUs which need to have their frequency coordinated by software: 0
analyzing CPU 1:
  CPUs which run at the same hardware frequency: 1
  CPUs which need to have their frequency coordinated by software: 1
analyzing CPU 2:
  CPUs which run at the same hardware frequency: 2
  CPUs which need to have their frequency coordinated by software: 2
analyzing CPU 3:
  CPUs which run at the same hardware frequency: 3
  CPUs which need to have their frequency coordinated by software: 3
analyzing CPU 4:
  CPUs which run at the same hardware frequency: 4
  CPUs which need to have their frequency coordinated by software: 4
analyzing CPU 5:
  CPUs which run at the same hardware frequency: 5
  CPUs which need to have their frequency coordinated by software: 5

But at least it's consistent:  The same results both before and after a
suspend/resume cycle.

And given that 3.8 wasn't ideal either, maybe that's good enough for
this cycle, and a real fix will have to wait until the next commit
window and stable-tree.  That'd give us more leeway to fix it right, as
well as a full cycle for testing anything else the "correct" fix might
dredge up.

-- 
Duncan - No HTML messages please, as they are filtered as spam.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master."  Richard Stallman

Re: [Bug 55411] sysfs per-cpu cpufreq subdirs/symlinks screwed up after s2ram

[Viresh Kumar]

On 25 March 2013 16:45, Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@cox.net> wrote:
> FWIW, with this patch, pre-s2ram and post-resume are indeed consistent,
> but it's not back to where it was.
>
> With this patch, each core is a cpufreq law unto itself.  Maybe that's
> what you meant with the note, maybe not (I know the mapping of sysfs
> files to cpufreq-info output was stated up-thread, but I lost track,
> and how affected vs related maps to hardware vs software coordinated
> and what it all actually means other than what I'm seeing isn't ideal,
> is apparently a bit more than I'm able to keep in my head ATM), but it's
> what I get. The relevant bits of cpufreq-info output:
>
> analyzing CPU 0:
>   CPUs which run at the same hardware frequency: 0
>   CPUs which need to have their frequency coordinated by software: 0
> analyzing CPU 1:
>   CPUs which run at the same hardware frequency: 1
>   CPUs which need to have their frequency coordinated by software: 1
> analyzing CPU 2:
>   CPUs which run at the same hardware frequency: 2
>   CPUs which need to have their frequency coordinated by software: 2
> analyzing CPU 3:
>   CPUs which run at the same hardware frequency: 3
>   CPUs which need to have their frequency coordinated by software: 3
> analyzing CPU 4:
>   CPUs which run at the same hardware frequency: 4
>   CPUs which need to have their frequency coordinated by software: 4
> analyzing CPU 5:
>   CPUs which run at the same hardware frequency: 5
>   CPUs which need to have their frequency coordinated by software: 5
>
> But at least it's consistent:  The same results both before and after a
> suspend/resume cycle.
>
> And given that 3.8 wasn't ideal either, maybe that's good enough for
> this cycle, and a real fix will have to wait until the next commit
> window and stable-tree.  That'd give us more leeway to fix it right, as
> well as a full cycle for testing anything else the "correct" fix might
> dredge up.

This is exactly what i expected and i wrote in Note. Because cpufreq core
does a lot of work based on related_cpus now, its better we don't set it
blindly for x86.

Following code was the only user of relatead_cpus in 3.8 code:

        /* Set governor before ->init, so that driver could check it */
#ifdef CONFIG_HOTPLUG_CPU
        for_each_online_cpu(sibling) {
                struct cpufreq_policy *cp = per_cpu(cpufreq_cpu_data, sibling);
                if (cp && cp->governor &&
                    (cpumask_test_cpu(cpu, cp->related_cpus))) {
                        policy->governor = cp->governor;
                        found = 1;
                        break;
                }
        }
#endif


There is no other user of relatead_cpus earlier in cpufreq core and that's why
i wonder why it was added earlier.

But a grep of relatead_cpus for 3.8 showed some interesting users in:
tools/power/cpupower/

I will try to check what they are doing with it, but for the kernel it
was almost unused.
And not it is very much used :)

But for 3.9 i believe this patch should be good enough.

Thanks for testing it.

--
viresh

Re: [Bug 55411] sysfs per-cpu cpufreq subdirs/symlinks screwed up after s2ram

[Borislav Petkov]

On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 04:53:39PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> But for 3.9 i believe this patch should be good enough.

Seems so here too.

Tested-by: Borislav Petkov <bp@suse.de>

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

Sent from a fat crate under my desk. Formatting is fine.
--

Re: [Bug 55411] sysfs per-cpu cpufreq subdirs/symlinks screwed up after s2ram

[Viresh Kumar]

On 25 March 2013 16:53, Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> wrote:
> There is no other user of relatead_cpus earlier in cpufreq core and that's why
> i wonder why it was added earlier.
>
> But a grep of relatead_cpus for 3.8 showed some interesting users in:
> tools/power/cpupower/
>
> I will try to check what they are doing with it, but for the kernel it
> was almost unused.

I checked tools and they aren't doing anything tricky with it. Just reading
groups of cpus from sysfs.

Now i believe even tools should be patched a bit to give correct meanings
of affected or related cpus. Let me try it.

Re: [Bug 55411] sysfs per-cpu cpufreq subdirs/symlinks screwed up after s2ram

[Borislav Petkov]

On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 02:40:53PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > And powernow-k8 does not exist anymore..., fortunately I didn't have to
> > look at this stuff for some time.
> 
> Sure? Driver is still present in mainline.

powernow-k8 is still there for, well, K8 only. Newer machines are
handled by acpi-cpufreq. Thus is acpi-cpufreq's health of major
importance especially now. :)

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

Sent from a fat crate under my desk. Formatting is fine.
--

More cpufreq breakage

[Borislav Petkov]

Btw,

while we're at it, I just discovered this in dmesg. Plain -rc3.

[34173.893305] ------------[ cut here ]------------
[34173.893321] WARNING: at kernel/mutex.c:199 mutex_lock_nested+0x39c/0x3b0()
[34173.893328] Hardware name: To be filled by O.E.M.
[34173.893333] Modules linked in: nls_iso8859_15 nls_cp437 fuse tun cpufreq_powersave cpufreq_userspace cpufreq_stats cpufreq_conservative dm_crypt dm_mod ipv6 vfat fat acpi_cpufreq mperf kvm_amd kvm crc32_pclmul aesni_intel aes_x86_64 ablk_helper cryptd xts lrw gf128mul microcode radeon amd64_edac_mod edac_core k10temp fam15h_power drm_kms_helper ttm cfbfillrect cfbimgblt r8169 cfbcopyarea
[34173.893395] Pid: 15316, comm: kworker/0:0 Not tainted 3.9.0-rc3 #1
[34173.893402] Call Trace:
[34173.893409]  [<ffffffff8103b33f>] warn_slowpath_common+0x7f/0xc0
[34173.893417]  [<ffffffff8103b39a>] warn_slowpath_null+0x1a/0x20
[34173.893424]  [<ffffffff8159654c>] mutex_lock_nested+0x39c/0x3b0
[34173.893432]  [<ffffffff8144b94d>] ? cpufreq_governor_dbs+0x3bd/0x560
[34173.893441]  [<ffffffff8106bded>] ? __blocking_notifier_call_chain+0x7d/0xd0
[34173.893449]  [<ffffffff8144b94d>] ? cpufreq_governor_dbs+0x3bd/0x560
[34173.893457]  [<ffffffff81074ce1>] ? get_parent_ip+0x11/0x50
[34173.893464]  [<ffffffff81074d99>] ? sub_preempt_count+0x79/0xd0
[34173.893472]  [<ffffffff8144b94d>] cpufreq_governor_dbs+0x3bd/0x560
[34173.893480]  [<ffffffff8144b24a>] od_cpufreq_governor_dbs+0x1a/0x20
[34173.893487]  [<ffffffff81448f13>] __cpufreq_governor+0x53/0xf0
[34173.893494]  [<ffffffff814494a5>] __cpufreq_set_policy+0x155/0x180
[34173.893502]  [<ffffffff8144a483>] cpufreq_update_policy+0xf3/0x130
[34173.893510]  [<ffffffff8144a4c0>] ? cpufreq_update_policy+0x130/0x130
[34173.893519]  [<ffffffff8144a4d1>] handle_update+0x11/0x20
[34173.893526]  [<ffffffff8105f3f7>] process_one_work+0x1f7/0x670
[34173.893533]  [<ffffffff8105f38c>] ? process_one_work+0x18c/0x670
[34173.893541]  [<ffffffff8105fbfe>] worker_thread+0x10e/0x370
[34173.893548]  [<ffffffff8105faf0>] ? rescuer_thread+0x240/0x240
[34173.893556]  [<ffffffff810654fb>] kthread+0xdb/0xe0
[34173.893563]  [<ffffffff81071ba5>] ? finish_task_switch+0x85/0x110
[34173.893572]  [<ffffffff81065420>] ? __init_kthread_worker+0x70/0x70
[34173.893579]  [<ffffffff8159a71c>] ret_from_fork+0x7c/0xb0
[34173.893587]  [<ffffffff81065420>] ? __init_kthread_worker+0x70/0x70
[34173.893594] ---[ end trace 66f5addf492b41b2 ]---

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

Sent from a fat crate under my desk. Formatting is fine.
--

Re: More cpufreq breakage

[Borislav Petkov]

On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 04:12:28PM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> Btw,
> 
> while we're at it, I just discovered this in dmesg. Plain -rc3.

Forgot to say, this happened once during resume.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

Sent from a fat crate under my desk. Formatting is fine.
--

Re: More cpufreq breakage

[Viresh Kumar]

On 22 March 2013 20:42, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de> wrote:
> Btw,
>
> while we're at it, I just discovered this in dmesg. Plain -rc3.

I am looking at it since some time, but need a bit of help.

> [34173.893305] ------------[ cut here ]------------
> [34173.893321] WARNING: at kernel/mutex.c:199 mutex_lock_nested+0x39c/0x3b0()
> [34173.893328] Hardware name: To be filled by O.E.M.
> [34173.893333] Modules linked in: nls_iso8859_15 nls_cp437 fuse tun cpufreq_powersave cpufreq_userspace cpufreq_stats cpufreq_conservative dm_crypt dm_mod ipv6 vfat fat acpi_cpufreq mperf kvm_amd kvm crc32_pclmul aesni_intel aes_x86_64 ablk_helper cryptd xts lrw gf128mul microcode radeon amd64_edac_mod edac_core k10temp fam15h_power drm_kms_helper ttm cfbfillrect cfbimgblt r8169 cfbcopyarea
> [34173.893395] Pid: 15316, comm: kworker/0:0 Not tainted 3.9.0-rc3 #1
> [34173.893402] Call Trace:
> [34173.893409]  [<ffffffff8103b33f>] warn_slowpath_common+0x7f/0xc0
> [34173.893417]  [<ffffffff8103b39a>] warn_slowpath_null+0x1a/0x20
> [34173.893424]  [<ffffffff8159654c>] mutex_lock_nested+0x39c/0x3b0
> [34173.893432]  [<ffffffff8144b94d>] ? cpufreq_governor_dbs+0x3bd/0x560
> [34173.893441]  [<ffffffff8106bded>] ? __blocking_notifier_call_chain+0x7d/0xd0
> [34173.893449]  [<ffffffff8144b94d>] ? cpufreq_governor_dbs+0x3bd/0x560
> [34173.893457]  [<ffffffff81074ce1>] ? get_parent_ip+0x11/0x50
> [34173.893464]  [<ffffffff81074d99>] ? sub_preempt_count+0x79/0xd0

What does "?" mean before a functions name in trace? I am not able to
figure out the exact sequence as i don't see why sub_preempt_count() and
get_parent_ip() got called. And then this notifier call.

Re: More cpufreq breakage

[Viresh Kumar]

On 22 March 2013 21:52, Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> wrote:
> On 22 March 2013 20:42, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de> wrote:
>> Btw,
>>
>> while we're at it, I just discovered this in dmesg. Plain -rc3.
>
> I am looking at it since some time, but need a bit of help.

Can you also give us what prints you got before this happened? That
would be helpful..

Re: More cpufreq breakage

[Borislav Petkov]

On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 09:52:29PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> What does "?" mean before a functions name in trace?

http://stackoverflow.com/questions/13113384/the-meaning-of-in-linux-kernel-panic-call-trace

Here's what's in dmesg before that (basically the machine is
hibernating):

Mar 20 10:14:40 pd vmunix: [34172.600018] PM: Syncing filesystems ... done.
Mar 20 10:14:40 pd vmunix: [34172.606180] Freezing user space processes ... (elapsed 0.01 seconds) done.
Mar 20 10:14:40 pd vmunix: [34172.620559] PM: Preallocating image memory... done (allocated 573862 pages)
Mar 20 10:14:40 pd vmunix: [34173.370592] PM: Allocated 2295448 kbytes in 0.75 seconds (3060.59 MB/s)
Mar 20 10:14:40 pd vmunix: [34173.370615] Freezing remaining freezable tasks ... (elapsed 0.01 seconds) done.
Mar 20 10:14:40 pd vmunix: [34173.388082] serial 00:09: disabled
Mar 20 10:14:40 pd vmunix: [34173.388117] serial 00:09: System wakeup disabled by ACPI
Mar 20 10:14:40 pd vmunix: [34173.695941] PM: freeze of devices complete after 311.852 msecs
Mar 20 10:14:40 pd vmunix: [34173.696673] PM: late freeze of devices complete after 0.722 msecs
Mar 20 10:14:40 pd vmunix: [34173.698914] PM: noirq freeze of devices complete after 2.234 msecs
Mar 20 10:14:40 pd vmunix: [34173.698932] Disabling non-boot CPUs ...
Mar 20 10:14:40 pd vmunix: [34173.703351] smpboot: CPU 1 is now offline
Mar 20 10:14:40 pd vmunix: [34173.708298] smpboot: CPU 2 is now offline
Mar 20 10:14:40 pd vmunix: [34173.712056] smpboot: CPU 3 is now offline
Mar 20 10:14:40 pd vmunix: [34173.717512] smpboot: CPU 4 is now offline
Mar 20 10:14:40 pd vmunix: [34173.722044] smpboot: CPU 5 is now offline
Mar 20 10:14:40 pd vmunix: [34173.728418] smpboot: CPU 6 is now offline
Mar 20 10:14:40 pd vmunix: [34173.731577] smpboot: CPU 7 is now offline
Mar 20 10:14:40 pd vmunix: [34173.732828] PM: Creating hibernation image:
Mar 20 10:14:40 pd vmunix: [34174.371451] PM: Need to copy 596216 pages
Mar 20 10:14:40 pd vmunix: [34173.879106] Enabling non-boot CPUs ...
Mar 20 10:14:40 pd vmunix: [34173.879171] SMP alternatives: lockdep: fixing up alternatives
Mar 20 10:14:40 pd vmunix: [34173.879182] smpboot: Booting Node 0 Processor 1 APIC 0x11
Mar 20 10:14:40 pd vmunix: [34173.890627] LVT offset 0 assigned for vector 0x400
Mar 20 10:14:40 pd vmunix: [34173.893305] ------------[ cut here ]------------
Mar 20 10:14:40 pd vmunix: [34173.893321] WARNING: at kernel/mutex.c:199 mutex_lock_nested+0x39c/0x3b0()
Mar 20 10:14:40 pd vmunix: [34173.893328] Hardware name: To be filled by O.E.M.
Mar 20 10:14:40 pd vmunix: [34173.893333] Modules linked in: nls_iso8859_15 nls_cp437 fuse tun cpufreq_powersave cpufreq_userspace cpufreq_stats cpufreq_conservative dm_crypt dm_mod ipv6 vfat fat acpi_cpufreq mperf kvm_amd kvm crc32_pclmul aesni_intel aes_x86_64 ablk_helper cryptd xts lrw gf128mul microcode radeon amd64_edac_mod edac_core k10temp fam15h_power drm_kms_helper ttm cfbfillrect cfbimgblt r8169 cfbcopyarea
Mar 20 10:14:40 pd vmunix: [34173.893395] Pid: 15316, comm: kworker/0:0 Not tainted 3.9.0-rc3 #1
Mar 20 10:14:40 pd vmunix: [34173.893402] Call Trace:
Mar 20 10:14:40 pd vmunix: [34173.893409]  [<ffffffff8103b33f>] warn_slowpath_common+0x7f/0xc0
Mar 20 10:14:40 pd vmunix: [34173.893417]  [<ffffffff8103b39a>] warn_slowpath_null+0x1a/0x20
Mar 20 10:14:40 pd vmunix: [34173.893424]  [<ffffffff8159654c>] mutex_lock_nested+0x39c/0x3b0
Mar 20 10:14:40 pd vmunix: [34173.893432]  [<ffffffff8144b94d>] ? cpufreq_governor_dbs+0x3bd/0x560
Mar 20 10:14:40 pd vmunix: [34173.893441]  [<ffffffff8106bded>] ? __blocking_notifier_call_chain+0x7d/0xd0
Mar 20 10:14:40 pd vmunix: [34173.893449]  [<ffffffff8144b94d>] ? cpufreq_governor_dbs+0x3bd/0x560
Mar 20 10:14:40 pd vmunix: [34173.893457]  [<ffffffff81074ce1>] ? get_parent_ip+0x11/0x50
Mar 20 10:14:40 pd vmunix: [34173.893464]  [<ffffffff81074d99>] ? sub_preempt_count+0x79/0xd0
Mar 20 10:14:40 pd vmunix: [34173.893472]  [<ffffffff8144b94d>] cpufreq_governor_dbs+0x3bd/0x560
Mar 20 10:14:40 pd vmunix: [34173.893480]  [<ffffffff8144b24a>] od_cpufreq_governor_dbs+0x1a/0x20
Mar 20 10:14:40 pd vmunix: [34173.893487]  [<ffffffff81448f13>] __cpufreq_governor+0x53/0xf0
Mar 20 10:14:40 pd vmunix: [34173.893494]  [<ffffffff814494a5>] __cpufreq_set_policy+0x155/0x180
Mar 20 10:14:40 pd vmunix: [34173.893502]  [<ffffffff8144a483>] cpufreq_update_policy+0xf3/0x130
Mar 20 10:14:40 pd vmunix: [34173.893510]  [<ffffffff8144a4c0>] ? cpufreq_update_policy+0x130/0x130
Mar 20 10:14:40 pd vmunix: [34173.893519]  [<ffffffff8144a4d1>] handle_update+0x11/0x20
Mar 20 10:14:40 pd vmunix: [34173.893526]  [<ffffffff8105f3f7>] process_one_work+0x1f7/0x670
Mar 20 10:14:40 pd vmunix: [34173.893533]  [<ffffffff8105f38c>] ? process_one_work+0x18c/0x670
Mar 20 10:14:40 pd vmunix: [34173.893541]  [<ffffffff8105fbfe>] worker_thread+0x10e/0x370
Mar 20 10:14:40 pd vmunix: [34173.893548]  [<ffffffff8105faf0>] ? rescuer_thread+0x240/0x240
Mar 20 10:14:40 pd vmunix: [34173.893556]  [<ffffffff810654fb>] kthread+0xdb/0xe0
Mar 20 10:14:40 pd vmunix: [34173.893563]  [<ffffffff81071ba5>] ? finish_task_switch+0x85/0x110
Mar 20 10:14:40 pd vmunix: [34173.893572]  [<ffffffff81065420>] ? __init_kthread_worker+0x70/0x70
Mar 20 10:14:40 pd vmunix: [34173.893579]  [<ffffffff8159a71c>] ret_from_fork+0x7c/0xb0
Mar 20 10:14:40 pd vmunix: [34173.893587]  [<ffffffff81065420>] ? __init_kthread_worker+0x70/0x70
Mar 20 10:14:40 pd vmunix: [34173.893594] ---[ end trace 66f5addf492b41b2 ]---

HTH.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

Sent from a fat crate under my desk. Formatting is fine.
--

Re: More cpufreq breakage

[Rafael J. Wysocki]

On Saturday, March 23, 2013 02:45:42 PM Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 09:52:29PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > What does "?" mean before a functions name in trace?
> 
> http://stackoverflow.com/questions/13113384/the-meaning-of-in-linux-kernel-panic-call-trace
> 
> Here's what's in dmesg before that (basically the machine is
> hibernating):
> 
> Mar 20 10:14:40 pd vmunix: [34172.600018] PM: Syncing filesystems ... done.
> Mar 20 10:14:40 pd vmunix: [34172.606180] Freezing user space processes ... (elapsed 0.01 seconds) done.
> Mar 20 10:14:40 pd vmunix: [34172.620559] PM: Preallocating image memory... done (allocated 573862 pages)
> Mar 20 10:14:40 pd vmunix: [34173.370592] PM: Allocated 2295448 kbytes in 0.75 seconds (3060.59 MB/s)
> Mar 20 10:14:40 pd vmunix: [34173.370615] Freezing remaining freezable tasks ... (elapsed 0.01 seconds) done.
> Mar 20 10:14:40 pd vmunix: [34173.388082] serial 00:09: disabled
> Mar 20 10:14:40 pd vmunix: [34173.388117] serial 00:09: System wakeup disabled by ACPI
> Mar 20 10:14:40 pd vmunix: [34173.695941] PM: freeze of devices complete after 311.852 msecs
> Mar 20 10:14:40 pd vmunix: [34173.696673] PM: late freeze of devices complete after 0.722 msecs
> Mar 20 10:14:40 pd vmunix: [34173.698914] PM: noirq freeze of devices complete after 2.234 msecs
> Mar 20 10:14:40 pd vmunix: [34173.698932] Disabling non-boot CPUs ...
> Mar 20 10:14:40 pd vmunix: [34173.703351] smpboot: CPU 1 is now offline
> Mar 20 10:14:40 pd vmunix: [34173.708298] smpboot: CPU 2 is now offline
> Mar 20 10:14:40 pd vmunix: [34173.712056] smpboot: CPU 3 is now offline
> Mar 20 10:14:40 pd vmunix: [34173.717512] smpboot: CPU 4 is now offline
> Mar 20 10:14:40 pd vmunix: [34173.722044] smpboot: CPU 5 is now offline
> Mar 20 10:14:40 pd vmunix: [34173.728418] smpboot: CPU 6 is now offline
> Mar 20 10:14:40 pd vmunix: [34173.731577] smpboot: CPU 7 is now offline
> Mar 20 10:14:40 pd vmunix: [34173.732828] PM: Creating hibernation image:
> Mar 20 10:14:40 pd vmunix: [34174.371451] PM: Need to copy 596216 pages
> Mar 20 10:14:40 pd vmunix: [34173.879106] Enabling non-boot CPUs ...
> Mar 20 10:14:40 pd vmunix: [34173.879171] SMP alternatives: lockdep: fixing up alternatives
> Mar 20 10:14:40 pd vmunix: [34173.879182] smpboot: Booting Node 0 Processor 1 APIC 0x11
> Mar 20 10:14:40 pd vmunix: [34173.890627] LVT offset 0 assigned for vector 0x400
> Mar 20 10:14:40 pd vmunix: [34173.893305] ------------[ cut here ]------------
> Mar 20 10:14:40 pd vmunix: [34173.893321] WARNING: at kernel/mutex.c:199 mutex_lock_nested+0x39c/0x3b0()
> Mar 20 10:14:40 pd vmunix: [34173.893328] Hardware name: To be filled by O.E.M.
> Mar 20 10:14:40 pd vmunix: [34173.893333] Modules linked in: nls_iso8859_15 nls_cp437 fuse tun cpufreq_powersave cpufreq_userspace cpufreq_stats cpufreq_conservative dm_crypt dm_mod ipv6 vfat fat acpi_cpufreq mperf kvm_amd kvm crc32_pclmul aesni_intel aes_x86_64 ablk_helper cryptd xts lrw gf128mul microcode radeon amd64_edac_mod edac_core k10temp fam15h_power drm_kms_helper ttm cfbfillrect cfbimgblt r8169 cfbcopyarea
> Mar 20 10:14:40 pd vmunix: [34173.893395] Pid: 15316, comm: kworker/0:0 Not tainted 3.9.0-rc3 #1
> Mar 20 10:14:40 pd vmunix: [34173.893402] Call Trace:
> Mar 20 10:14:40 pd vmunix: [34173.893409]  [<ffffffff8103b33f>] warn_slowpath_common+0x7f/0xc0
> Mar 20 10:14:40 pd vmunix: [34173.893417]  [<ffffffff8103b39a>] warn_slowpath_null+0x1a/0x20
> Mar 20 10:14:40 pd vmunix: [34173.893424]  [<ffffffff8159654c>] mutex_lock_nested+0x39c/0x3b0
> Mar 20 10:14:40 pd vmunix: [34173.893432]  [<ffffffff8144b94d>] ? cpufreq_governor_dbs+0x3bd/0x560
> Mar 20 10:14:40 pd vmunix: [34173.893441]  [<ffffffff8106bded>] ? __blocking_notifier_call_chain+0x7d/0xd0
> Mar 20 10:14:40 pd vmunix: [34173.893449]  [<ffffffff8144b94d>] ? cpufreq_governor_dbs+0x3bd/0x560
> Mar 20 10:14:40 pd vmunix: [34173.893457]  [<ffffffff81074ce1>] ? get_parent_ip+0x11/0x50
> Mar 20 10:14:40 pd vmunix: [34173.893464]  [<ffffffff81074d99>] ? sub_preempt_count+0x79/0xd0
> Mar 20 10:14:40 pd vmunix: [34173.893472]  [<ffffffff8144b94d>] cpufreq_governor_dbs+0x3bd/0x560
> Mar 20 10:14:40 pd vmunix: [34173.893480]  [<ffffffff8144b24a>] od_cpufreq_governor_dbs+0x1a/0x20
> Mar 20 10:14:40 pd vmunix: [34173.893487]  [<ffffffff81448f13>] __cpufreq_governor+0x53/0xf0
> Mar 20 10:14:40 pd vmunix: [34173.893494]  [<ffffffff814494a5>] __cpufreq_set_policy+0x155/0x180
> Mar 20 10:14:40 pd vmunix: [34173.893502]  [<ffffffff8144a483>] cpufreq_update_policy+0xf3/0x130
> Mar 20 10:14:40 pd vmunix: [34173.893510]  [<ffffffff8144a4c0>] ? cpufreq_update_policy+0x130/0x130
> Mar 20 10:14:40 pd vmunix: [34173.893519]  [<ffffffff8144a4d1>] handle_update+0x11/0x20
> Mar 20 10:14:40 pd vmunix: [34173.893526]  [<ffffffff8105f3f7>] process_one_work+0x1f7/0x670
> Mar 20 10:14:40 pd vmunix: [34173.893533]  [<ffffffff8105f38c>] ? process_one_work+0x18c/0x670
> Mar 20 10:14:40 pd vmunix: [34173.893541]  [<ffffffff8105fbfe>] worker_thread+0x10e/0x370
> Mar 20 10:14:40 pd vmunix: [34173.893548]  [<ffffffff8105faf0>] ? rescuer_thread+0x240/0x240
> Mar 20 10:14:40 pd vmunix: [34173.893556]  [<ffffffff810654fb>] kthread+0xdb/0xe0
> Mar 20 10:14:40 pd vmunix: [34173.893563]  [<ffffffff81071ba5>] ? finish_task_switch+0x85/0x110
> Mar 20 10:14:40 pd vmunix: [34173.893572]  [<ffffffff81065420>] ? __init_kthread_worker+0x70/0x70
> Mar 20 10:14:40 pd vmunix: [34173.893579]  [<ffffffff8159a71c>] ret_from_fork+0x7c/0xb0
> Mar 20 10:14:40 pd vmunix: [34173.893587]  [<ffffffff81065420>] ? __init_kthread_worker+0x70/0x70
> Mar 20 10:14:40 pd vmunix: [34173.893594] ---[ end trace 66f5addf492b41b2 ]---

This looks like the CPU offline path to me (i.e. the CPU hotplug notifier
does something fishy).

Thanks,
Rafael


-- 
I speak only for myself.
Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center.

Re: More cpufreq breakage

[Viresh Kumar]

On 23 March 2013 19:57, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@sisk.pl> wrote:
>> Mar 20 10:14:40 pd vmunix: [34173.698932] Disabling non-boot CPUs ...
>> Mar 20 10:14:40 pd vmunix: [34173.703351] smpboot: CPU 1 is now offline
>> Mar 20 10:14:40 pd vmunix: [34173.708298] smpboot: CPU 2 is now offline
>> Mar 20 10:14:40 pd vmunix: [34173.712056] smpboot: CPU 3 is now offline
>> Mar 20 10:14:40 pd vmunix: [34173.717512] smpboot: CPU 4 is now offline
>> Mar 20 10:14:40 pd vmunix: [34173.722044] smpboot: CPU 5 is now offline
>> Mar 20 10:14:40 pd vmunix: [34173.728418] smpboot: CPU 6 is now offline
>> Mar 20 10:14:40 pd vmunix: [34173.731577] smpboot: CPU 7 is now offline
>> Mar 20 10:14:40 pd vmunix: [34173.732828] PM: Creating hibernation image:
>> Mar 20 10:14:40 pd vmunix: [34174.371451] PM: Need to copy 596216 pages
>> Mar 20 10:14:40 pd vmunix: [34173.879106] Enabling non-boot CPUs ...
>> Mar 20 10:14:40 pd vmunix: [34173.879171] SMP alternatives: lockdep: fixing up alternatives
>> Mar 20 10:14:40 pd vmunix: [34173.879182] smpboot: Booting Node 0 Processor 1 APIC 0x11
>> Mar 20 10:14:40 pd vmunix: [34173.890627] LVT offset 0 assigned for vector 0x400
>> Mar 20 10:14:40 pd vmunix: [34173.893305] ------------[ cut here ]------------
>> Mar 20 10:14:40 pd vmunix: [34173.893321] WARNING: at kernel/mutex.c:199 mutex_lock_nested+0x39c/0x3b0()

>
> This looks like the CPU offline path to me (i.e. the CPU hotplug notifier
> does something fishy).

I think otherwise, Its the cpu online path but this didn't happened for
first boot (probably).

Enabling non-boot CPUs ...

--
viresh

Re: More cpufreq breakage

[Viresh Kumar]

On 23 March 2013 20:04, Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> wrote:
> I think otherwise, Its the cpu online path but this didn't happened for
> first boot (probably).

I tried on my 4 cpu laptop and my bad, couldn't reproduce the issue
reported by both Borislav and Duncan :(

Hibernation logs (Borislav's bug):
https://pastebin.linaro.org/2019/

cpufreq-info after hibernation (same happens with suspend)  (Duncan's bug):
https://pastebin.linaro.org/2020/

The main difference between our systems is number of cpu groups that share
clock line. On setup of both Duncan and Borislav, they had total of 8 cpus and
four groups 0-1, 2-3, 4-5, 6-7. And thus have four policy structures. And i have
only one group 0-1-2-3 and thus only one policy struct.

For Duncan: The first policy structure (that has boot cpu) never gets corrupted
and probably that's why i am not able to reproduce it again.

@Borislav: BTW, can you try reproducing your issue again? If that is
reproducible?

I am asking for this because your logs looked confusing to me.

Mar 20 10:14:40 pd vmunix: [34173.893409]  [<ffffffff8103b33f>]
warn_slowpath_common+0x7f/0xc0
Mar 20 10:14:40 pd vmunix: [34173.893417]  [<ffffffff8103b39a>]
warn_slowpath_null+0x1a/0x20
Mar 20 10:14:40 pd vmunix: [34173.893424]  [<ffffffff8159654c>]
mutex_lock_nested+0x39c/0x3b0
Mar 20 10:14:40 pd vmunix: [34173.893432]  [<ffffffff8144b94d>] ?
cpufreq_governor_dbs+0x3bd/0x560
Mar 20 10:14:40 pd vmunix: [34173.893441]  [<ffffffff8106bded>] ?
__blocking_notifier_call_chain+0x7d/0xd0
Mar 20 10:14:40 pd vmunix: [34173.893449]  [<ffffffff8144b94d>] ?
cpufreq_governor_dbs+0x3bd/0x560
Mar 20 10:14:40 pd vmunix: [34173.893457]  [<ffffffff81074ce1>] ?
get_parent_ip+0x11/0x50
Mar 20 10:14:40 pd vmunix: [34173.893464]  [<ffffffff81074d99>] ?
sub_preempt_count+0x79/0xd0
Mar 20 10:14:40 pd vmunix: [34173.893472]  [<ffffffff8144b94d>]
cpufreq_governor_dbs+0x3bd/0x560

I don't see (logically) how sub_preempt_count() can be called from
cpufreq_governor_dbs()? As it is mostly called from kernel/sched/ part only.

So maybe two logs are mixed here and crash got due to
sub_preempt_count()->get_parent_ip() and not cpufreq. :)

If you still get it, try disabling cpufreq completely and see if it is
gone or not.

Thanks in Advance.

--
viresh

Re: More cpufreq breakage

[Borislav Petkov]

On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 08:46:00PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 23 March 2013 20:04, Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> wrote:
> > I think otherwise, Its the cpu online path but this didn't happened for
> > first boot (probably).
> 
> I tried on my 4 cpu laptop and my bad, couldn't reproduce the issue
> reported by both Borislav and Duncan :(
> 
> Hibernation logs (Borislav's bug):
> https://pastebin.linaro.org/2019/
> 
> cpufreq-info after hibernation (same happens with suspend)  (Duncan's bug):
> https://pastebin.linaro.org/2020/

Those pastebin things want a login. Use a free one.

> The main difference between our systems is number of cpu groups that
> share clock line. On setup of both Duncan and Borislav, they had total
> of 8 cpus and four groups 0-1, 2-3, 4-5, 6-7. And thus have four
> policy structures. And i have only one group 0-1-2-3 and thus only one
> policy struct.

So this should give you a clue - you need to repro it on a similar
machine and your laptop is obviously not similar.

> @Borislav: BTW, can you try reproducing your issue again? If that is
> reproducible?

I've seen it only once so far and I've suspended the machine a bunch of
times already. So I don't think it is that easy to reproduce.

> I don't see (logically) how sub_preempt_count() can be called from
> cpufreq_governor_dbs()? As it is mostly called from kernel/sched/ part
> only.

As Rafael said, there's a notifier running which can, AFAICT, disable
preemption on another CPU in parallel, for example.

> If you still get it, try disabling cpufreq completely and see if it is
> gone or not.

Unfortunately this is my desktop machine and I don't want to test stuff
on it because I need it to work. And I've already downgraded to 3.8.3
because of the other cpufreq breakage which kept a subset of the cores
at max freq because acpi-cpufreq wasn't loading on them.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

Sent from a fat crate under my desk. Formatting is fine.
--

Re: More cpufreq breakage

[Viresh Kumar]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 712 bytes --]

On 23 March 2013 21:36, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de> wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 08:46:00PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> Those pastebin things want a login. Use a free one.

Attached now.

> So this should give you a clue - you need to repro it on a similar
> machine and your laptop is obviously not similar.

I know that. I would be trying to on monday on my office desktop.

> Unfortunately this is my desktop machine and I don't want to test stuff
> on it because I need it to work. And I've already downgraded to 3.8.3
> because of the other cpufreq breakage which kept a subset of the cores
> at max freq because acpi-cpufreq wasn't loading on them.

And that is already caused recently?

--
viresh

[-- Attachment #2: cpufreqinfo.log --]
[-- Type: application/octet-stream, Size: 3811 bytes --]


viresh@blr-linut-001:$ cpufreq-info
cpufrequtils 007: cpufreq-info (C) Dominik Brodowski 2004-2009
Report errors and bugs to cpufreq@vger.kernel.org, please.
analyzing CPU 0:
  driver: acpi-cpufreq
  CPUs which run at the same hardware frequency: 0 1 2 3
  CPUs which need to have their frequency coordinated by software: 0 1 2 3
  maximum transition latency: 10.0 us.
  hardware limits: 800 MHz - 2.80 GHz
  available frequency steps: 2.80 GHz, 2.80 GHz, 2.60 GHz, 2.40 GHz, 2.20 GHz, 2.00 GHz, 1.80 GHz, 1.60 GHz, 1.40 GHz, 1.20 GHz, 1000 MHz, 800 MHz
  available cpufreq governors: conservative, ondemand, userspace, powersave, performance
  current policy: frequency should be within 800 MHz and 2.80 GHz.
                  The governor "ondemand" may decide which speed to use
                  within this range.
  current CPU frequency is 800 MHz.
  cpufreq stats: 2.80 GHz:8.64%, 2.80 GHz:0.16%, 2.60 GHz:0.13%, 2.40 GHz:0.10%, 2.20 GHz:0.08%, 2.00 GHz:0.12%, 1.80 GHz:0.08%, 1.60 GHz:0.24%, 1.40 GHz:0.12%, 1.20 GHz:0.17%, 1000 MHz:0.28%, 800 MHz:89.87%  (1943)
analyzing CPU 1:
  driver: acpi-cpufreq
  CPUs which run at the same hardware frequency: 0 1 2 3
  CPUs which need to have their frequency coordinated by software: 0 1 2 3
  maximum transition latency: 10.0 us.
  hardware limits: 800 MHz - 2.80 GHz
  available frequency steps: 2.80 GHz, 2.80 GHz, 2.60 GHz, 2.40 GHz, 2.20 GHz, 2.00 GHz, 1.80 GHz, 1.60 GHz, 1.40 GHz, 1.20 GHz, 1000 MHz, 800 MHz
  available cpufreq governors: conservative, ondemand, userspace, powersave, performance
  current policy: frequency should be within 800 MHz and 2.80 GHz.
                  The governor "ondemand" may decide which speed to use
                  within this range.
  current CPU frequency is 800 MHz.
  cpufreq stats: 2.80 GHz:8.64%, 2.80 GHz:0.16%, 2.60 GHz:0.13%, 2.40 GHz:0.10%, 2.20 GHz:0.08%, 2.00 GHz:0.12%, 1.80 GHz:0.08%, 1.60 GHz:0.24%, 1.40 GHz:0.12%, 1.20 GHz:0.17%, 1000 MHz:0.28%, 800 MHz:89.87%  (1943)
analyzing CPU 2:
  driver: acpi-cpufreq
  CPUs which run at the same hardware frequency: 0 1 2 3
  CPUs which need to have their frequency coordinated by software: 0 1 2 3
  maximum transition latency: 10.0 us.
  hardware limits: 800 MHz - 2.80 GHz
  available frequency steps: 2.80 GHz, 2.80 GHz, 2.60 GHz, 2.40 GHz, 2.20 GHz, 2.00 GHz, 1.80 GHz, 1.60 GHz, 1.40 GHz, 1.20 GHz, 1000 MHz, 800 MHz
  available cpufreq governors: conservative, ondemand, userspace, powersave, performance
  current policy: frequency should be within 800 MHz and 2.80 GHz.
                  The governor "ondemand" may decide which speed to use
                  within this range.
  current CPU frequency is 800 MHz.
  cpufreq stats: 2.80 GHz:8.64%, 2.80 GHz:0.16%, 2.60 GHz:0.13%, 2.40 GHz:0.10%, 2.20 GHz:0.08%, 2.00 GHz:0.12%, 1.80 GHz:0.08%, 1.60 GHz:0.24%, 1.40 GHz:0.12%, 1.20 GHz:0.17%, 1000 MHz:0.28%, 800 MHz:89.87%  (1943)
analyzing CPU 3:
  driver: acpi-cpufreq
  CPUs which run at the same hardware frequency: 0 1 2 3
  CPUs which need to have their frequency coordinated by software: 0 1 2 3
  maximum transition latency: 10.0 us.
  hardware limits: 800 MHz - 2.80 GHz
  available frequency steps: 2.80 GHz, 2.80 GHz, 2.60 GHz, 2.40 GHz, 2.20 GHz, 2.00 GHz, 1.80 GHz, 1.60 GHz, 1.40 GHz, 1.20 GHz, 1000 MHz, 800 MHz
  available cpufreq governors: conservative, ondemand, userspace, powersave, performance
  current policy: frequency should be within 800 MHz and 2.80 GHz.
                  The governor "ondemand" may decide which speed to use
                  within this range.
  current CPU frequency is 800 MHz.
  cpufreq stats: 2.80 GHz:8.64%, 2.80 GHz:0.16%, 2.60 GHz:0.13%, 2.40 GHz:0.10%, 2.20 GHz:0.08%, 2.00 GHz:0.12%, 1.80 GHz:0.08%, 1.60 GHz:0.24%, 1.40 GHz:0.12%, 1.20 GHz:0.17%, 1000 MHz:0.28%, 800 MHz:89.87%  (1943)

[-- Attachment #3: hibernation.logs --]
[-- Type: application/octet-stream, Size: 2292 bytes --]

[   87.758146] Freezing user space processes ... (elapsed 0.01 seconds) done.
[   87.774953] PM: Preallocating image memory... done (allocated 349006 pages)
[   87.869193] PM: Allocated 1396024 kbytes in 0.09 seconds (15511.37 MB/s)
[   87.869194] Freezing remaining freezable tasks ... (elapsed 0.01 seconds)
done.
[   87.882878] Suspending console(s) (use no_console_suspend to debug)
[   88.359613] PM: freeze of devices complete after 476.590 msecs
[   88.359720] PM: late freeze of devices complete after 0.105 msecs
[   88.360549] PM: noirq freeze of devices complete after 0.827 msecs
[   88.360764] ACPI: Preparing to enter system sleep state S4
[   88.366087] PM: Saving platform NVS memory
[   88.367115] Disabling non-boot CPUs ...
[   88.368314] smpboot: CPU 1 is now offline
[   88.470780] smpboot: CPU 2 is now offline
[   88.471102] Broke affinity for irq 9
[   88.472143] smpboot: CPU 3 is now offline
[   88.472413] cpufreq: suspending cpu 0
[   88.472418] PM: Creating hibernation image:
[   88.510563] PM: Need to copy 347546 pages
[   88.510564] PM: Normal pages needed: 347546 + 1024, available pages: 671053
[   88.473176] PM: Restoring platform NVS memory
[   88.473653] cpufreq: resuming cpu 0
[   88.473654] acpi_cpufreq_resume
[   88.473959] cpufreq: handle_update for cpu 0 called
[   88.473960] cpufreq: updating policy for CPU 0
[   88.473961] get_cur_freq_on_cpu (0)
[   88.473962] get_cur_val = 8960
[   88.473963] cur freq = 2801000
[   88.473963] cpufreq: setting new policy for CPU 0: 800000 - 2801000 kHz
[   88.473963] acpi_cpufreq_verify
[   88.473965] acpi_cpufreq_verify
[   88.473966] cpufreq: new min and max freqs are 800000 - 2801000 kHz
[   88.473966] cpufreq: governor: change or update limits
[   88.473973] Enabling non-boot CPUs ...
[   88.473999] smpboot: Booting Node 0 Processor 1 APIC 0x1
[   88.484935] Disabled fast string operations
[   88.487149] cpufreq: adding CPU 1
[   88.487158] CPU1 is up
[   88.487177] smpboot: Booting Node 0 Processor 2 APIC 0x2
[   88.498212] Disabled fast string operations
[   88.500444] cpufreq: adding CPU 2
[   88.500452] CPU2 is up
[   88.500465] smpboot: Booting Node 0 Processor 3 APIC 0x3
[   88.511499] Disabled fast string operations
[   88.513732] cpufreq: adding CPU 3
[   88.513740] CPU3 is up

Re: More cpufreq breakage

[Borislav Petkov]

On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 10:34:28PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> And that is already caused recently?

3.8.3 is fine and there are no cpufreq patches in v3.8..v3.8.3. Which
would mean, plain v3.8 is also fine. Which means, the breakage must've
come in during the merge window.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

Sent from a fat crate under my desk. Formatting is fine.
--

Re: More cpufreq breakage

[Viresh Kumar]

[Forgot to add all in previous mail, reply-all now]

On 24 March 2013 00:20, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de> wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 10:34:28PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
>> And that is already caused recently?

Ahh!! s/already/also

> 3.8.3 is fine and there are no cpufreq patches in v3.8..v3.8.3. Which
> would mean, plain v3.8 is also fine. Which means, the breakage must've
> come in during the merge window.

I didn't get a complete picture of your problem, can you elaborate a bit
with all your observations?

It might be related to the problem reported by Duncan and might be solved
by the patch i sent yesterday.

Re: More cpufreq breakage

[Borislav Petkov]

On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 02:35:41PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> I didn't get a complete picture of your problem, can you elaborate a
> bit with all your observations?

It is basically the same observation. Some of the even cores are not
handled by any cpufreq driver anymore, i.e. in the cpufreq-info output.
And thus they remain in P0 which is max freq. And this happens because
I'm suspending my workstation at night which takes the cores offline, so
it is the same trigger as Duncan's.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

Sent from a fat crate under my desk. Formatting is fine.
--

Re: [Bug 55411] sysfs per-cpu cpufreq subdirs/symlinks screwed up after s2ram

[Viresh Kumar]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2665 bytes --]

On 19 March 2013 14:20, Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> wrote:
> We are talking here about a bug reported by Duncan here. His cpu/cpu*/cpufreq
> directory are getting corrupted with 3.9-rc3 and was working well with 3.8

Hi Duncan,

My weekend is already spoiled (due to my bugs :) ) and i don't want to spoil
yours. But this is a important patch to test, can you please give it a
try as soon
as you can? And confirm if this resolves your issues or not? (patch is attached
too)

------------x------------------x------------------

From: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2013 23:42:44 +0530
Subject: [PATCH] cpufreq: acpi-cpufreq: Set policy->cpus correctly from .init()

With the addition of following patch:

fcf8058 cpufreq: Simplify cpufreq_add_dev()

cpufreq driver's .init() routine must initialize policy->cpus with mask of all
possible cpus (Online + Offline) that share the clock. Then the core would copy
this mask onto policy->related_cpus and will reset policy->cpus to carry only
online cpus.

acpi-cpufreq driver wasn't updated with this assumption and so sometimes when
we try to hot[un]plug cpus at run time, sysfs directories gets corrupted.

This patch fixes acpi-cpufreq driver against this corruption.

Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
---
 drivers/cpufreq/acpi-cpufreq.c | 14 ++------------
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/acpi-cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/acpi-cpufreq.c
index 937bc28..ceb5925 100644
--- a/drivers/cpufreq/acpi-cpufreq.c
+++ b/drivers/cpufreq/acpi-cpufreq.c
@@ -722,15 +722,7 @@ static int acpi_cpufreq_cpu_init(struct
cpufreq_policy *policy)
 	perf = data->acpi_data;
 	policy->shared_type = perf->shared_type;

-	/*
-	 * Will let policy->cpus know about dependency only when software
-	 * coordination is required.
-	 */
-	if (policy->shared_type == CPUFREQ_SHARED_TYPE_ALL ||
-	    policy->shared_type == CPUFREQ_SHARED_TYPE_ANY) {
-		cpumask_copy(policy->cpus, perf->shared_cpu_map);
-	}
-	cpumask_copy(policy->related_cpus, perf->shared_cpu_map);
+	cpumask_copy(policy->cpus, perf->shared_cpu_map);

 #ifdef CONFIG_SMP
 	dmi_check_system(sw_any_bug_dmi_table);
@@ -740,9 +732,7 @@ static int acpi_cpufreq_cpu_init(struct
cpufreq_policy *policy)
 	}

 	if (check_amd_hwpstate_cpu(cpu) && !acpi_pstate_strict) {
-		cpumask_clear(policy->cpus);
-		cpumask_set_cpu(cpu, policy->cpus);
-		cpumask_copy(policy->related_cpus, cpu_sibling_mask(cpu));
+		cpumask_copy(policy->cpus, cpu_sibling_mask(cpu));
 		policy->shared_type = CPUFREQ_SHARED_TYPE_HW;
 		pr_info_once(PFX "overriding BIOS provided _PSD data\n");
 	}


--
viresh

[-- Attachment #2: 0001-cpufreq-acpi-cpufreq-Set-policy-cpus-correctly-from-.patch --]
[-- Type: application/octet-stream, Size: 2312 bytes --]

From 4fb03dd59965d8fa011df49358632f95aef1fa74 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
Message-Id: <4fb03dd59965d8fa011df49358632f95aef1fa74.1364062607.git.viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
From: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2013 23:42:44 +0530
Subject: [PATCH] cpufreq: acpi-cpufreq: Set policy->cpus correctly from
 .init()

With the addition of following patch:

fcf8058 cpufreq: Simplify cpufreq_add_dev()

cpufreq driver's .init() routine must initialize policy->cpus with mask of all
possible cpus (Online + Offline) that share the clock. Then the core would copy
this mask onto policy->related_cpus and will reset policy->cpus to carry only
online cpus.

acpi-cpufreq driver wasn't updated with this assumption and so sometimes when
we try to hot[un]plug cpus at run time, sysfs directories gets corrupted.

This patch fixes acpi-cpufreq driver against this corruption.

Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
---
 drivers/cpufreq/acpi-cpufreq.c | 14 ++------------
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/acpi-cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/acpi-cpufreq.c
index 937bc28..ceb5925 100644
--- a/drivers/cpufreq/acpi-cpufreq.c
+++ b/drivers/cpufreq/acpi-cpufreq.c
@@ -722,15 +722,7 @@ static int acpi_cpufreq_cpu_init(struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
 	perf = data->acpi_data;
 	policy->shared_type = perf->shared_type;
 
-	/*
-	 * Will let policy->cpus know about dependency only when software
-	 * coordination is required.
-	 */
-	if (policy->shared_type == CPUFREQ_SHARED_TYPE_ALL ||
-	    policy->shared_type == CPUFREQ_SHARED_TYPE_ANY) {
-		cpumask_copy(policy->cpus, perf->shared_cpu_map);
-	}
-	cpumask_copy(policy->related_cpus, perf->shared_cpu_map);
+	cpumask_copy(policy->cpus, perf->shared_cpu_map);
 
 #ifdef CONFIG_SMP
 	dmi_check_system(sw_any_bug_dmi_table);
@@ -740,9 +732,7 @@ static int acpi_cpufreq_cpu_init(struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
 	}
 
 	if (check_amd_hwpstate_cpu(cpu) && !acpi_pstate_strict) {
-		cpumask_clear(policy->cpus);
-		cpumask_set_cpu(cpu, policy->cpus);
-		cpumask_copy(policy->related_cpus, cpu_sibling_mask(cpu));
+		cpumask_copy(policy->cpus, cpu_sibling_mask(cpu));
 		policy->shared_type = CPUFREQ_SHARED_TYPE_HW;
 		pr_info_once(PFX "overriding BIOS provided _PSD data\n");
 	}
-- 
1.7.12.rc2.18.g61b472e