From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Borislav Petkov Subject: Re: More cpufreq breakage Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2013 17:06:44 +0100 Message-ID: <20130323160644.GC10811@pd.tnic> References: <20130323134541.GA10811@pd.tnic> <5152799.d8sLDQMJWT@vostro.rjw.lan> Mime-Version: 1.0 Return-path: DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=alien8.de; s=alien8; t=1364054807; bh=o7AKvi3Ugw5FYKuxgIOKWLZkscEfkqnX1abn26BA4u8=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:In-Reply-To; b=SnhXhAr4Vid6a0VVVF3B0NJKM03xz/w+38uK5A hgL7iGvnLYm0J6Rd7D9qGQ1odmw2ZFUxoyZ1o5w37ULb6JD0IRL2KOmYPrqZbYcNEHp 8Yi+PI0mkDKFeOPvMfLCATJ1mlcnaN0WE3d8mVrVlKO7ca62snMHYY2SIae+C2i2TI= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=alien8.de; s=alien8; t=1364054807; bh=o7AKvi3Ugw5FYKuxgIOKWLZkscEfkqnX1abn26BA4u8=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:In-Reply-To; b=SnhXhAr4Vid6a0VVVF3B0NJKM03xz/w+38uK5A hgL7iGvnLYm0J6Rd7D9qGQ1odmw2ZFUxoyZ1o5w37ULb6JD0IRL2KOmYPrqZbYcNEHp 8Yi+PI0mkDKFeOPvMfLCATJ1mlcnaN0WE3d8mVrVlKO7ca62snMHYY2SIae+C2i2TI= Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: cpufreq-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Viresh Kumar Cc: 1i5t5.duncan@cox.net, "Rafael J. Wysocki" , bugzilla-daemon@bugzilla.kernel.org, Andre Przywara , cpufreq@vger.kernel.org, Lists linaro-kernel , Thomas Renninger On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 08:46:00PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 23 March 2013 20:04, Viresh Kumar 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. --