From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
From: bugzilla-daemon@bugzilla.kernel.org
Subject: [Bug 153221] New: failing to set governor with
cpupower-frequency-set
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2016 14:34:21 +0000
Message-ID:
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path:
Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.136]:43374 "EHLO mail.kernel.org"
rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
id S1752434AbcHPOeY (ORCPT );
Tue, 16 Aug 2016 10:34:24 -0400
Received: from mail.kernel.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BBC35201C8
for ; Tue, 16 Aug 2016 14:34:22 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from bugzilla2.web.kernel.org (bugzilla2.web.kernel.org [172.20.200.52])
by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B8906201C0
for ; Tue, 16 Aug 2016 14:34:21 +0000 (UTC)
Sender: linux-pm-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org
To: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=153221
Bug ID: 153221
Summary: failing to set governor with cpupower-frequency-set
Product: Power Management
Version: 2.5
Kernel Version: 4.7.0-1-ARCH
Hardware: Intel
OS: Linux
Tree: Mainline
Status: NEW
Severity: normal
Priority: P1
Component: cpufreq
Assignee: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org
Reporter: foudil.newbie+linux@gmail.com
Regression: No
Created attachment 229121
--> https://bugzilla.kernel.org/attachment.cgi?id=229121&action=edit
cpupower-frequency-set patch
cpupower frequency-set -g performance
has no effect.
I think this is due to a bug introduced by ac5a181d065d74fb:
@@ -298,3 +298,3 @@ int cmd_freq_set(int argc, char **argv)
if (!bitmask_isbitset(cpus_chosen, cpu) ||
- cpufreq_cpu_exists(cpu))
+ cpupower_is_cpu_online(cpu))
continue;
@@ -318,6 +318,6 @@ int cmd_freq_set(int argc, char **argv)
if (!bitmask_isbitset(cpus_chosen, cpu) ||
- cpufreq_cpu_exists(cpu))
+ cpupower_is_cpu_online(cpu))
continue;
- if (sysfs_is_cpu_online(cpu) != 1)
+ if (cpupower_is_cpu_online(cpu) != 1)
continue;
The two functions cpufreq_cpu_exists() and sysfs_is_cpu_online() were replaced
by cpupower_is_cpu_online(), which is misused in the first test.
I'm proposing a patch in attachment.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.