Hi,
linux-3.10.1 introduced a regression in cpufreq breaking suspend/resume
cycle for some people [1].
There were also some other threads about it in lkml.
I see 3.10.2-stable was released some days ago. I couldn’t see anything
about fixing this regression reported in the changelog.
And to be 110% certain, I compiled it and tried suspending/resuming;
it’s still broken.
Is this going to be fixed in 3.10 stable branch?
Thank you very much in advance.
[1] first commit that bisect informed as introducing the regression:
| commit c02527487f0c8feb578c0394ad481a97f26d3bd2
| Author: Srivatsa S. Bhat <[email protected]>
| Date: Mon Jul 1 00:40:55 2013 +0200
|
| cpufreq: Fix cpufreq regression after suspend/resume
|
| commit f51e1eb63d9c28cec188337ee656a13be6980cfd upstream.
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/linux.kernel/LUi1pFCxbSI
--
Kiko
On 07/22/2013 08:46 PM, Kiko Piris wrote:
> Hi,
>
> linux-3.10.1 introduced a regression in cpufreq breaking suspend/resume
> cycle for some people [1].
>
> There were also some other threads about it in lkml.
>
> I see 3.10.2-stable was released some days ago. I couldn’t see anything
> about fixing this regression reported in the changelog.
>
> And to be 110% certain, I compiled it and tried suspending/resuming;
> it’s still broken.
>
> Is this going to be fixed in 3.10 stable branch?
>
The patches that fix that regression went into mainline just a few days
ago as these commits:
commit aae760ed21cd690fe8a6db9f3a177ad55d7e12ab
Author: Srivatsa S. Bhat <[email protected]>
Date: Fri Jul 12 03:45:37 2013 +0530
cpufreq: Revert commit a66b2e to fix suspend/resume regression
commit e8d05276f236ee6435e78411f62be9714e0b9377
Author: Srivatsa S. Bhat <[email protected]>
Date: Tue Jul 16 22:46:48 2013 +0200
cpufreq: Revert commit 2f7021a8 to fix CPU hotplug regression
And both of them have been CC'ed to -stable. So they should be hitting
the stable tree soon.
Hmm, that reminds me.. whenever a patch cc'ed to stable hit the mainline,
the patch signers used to receive an automatic email from Greg. I didn't
get that for the above two patches.. Did the process change due to the
recent discussions around -stable tree maintenance?
Regards,
Srivatsa S. Bhat
On Mon, 2013-07-22 at 17:16 +0200, Kiko Piris wrote:
> linux-3.10.1 introduced a regression in cpufreq breaking suspend/resume
> cycle for some people [1].
The upstream commit that probably will fix the regression that Kiko ran
into is aae760ed21cd690fe8a6db9f3a177ad55d7e12ab ("cpufreq: Revert
commit a66b2e to fix suspend/resume regression"). It's only part of
v3.11-rc2 and was committed with a
Cc: 3.10+ <[email protected]>
tag. So I'd guess that fix will be part of a future v3.10.y (stable)
releases.
> There were also some other threads about it in lkml.
>
> I see 3.10.2-stable was released some days ago. I couldn’t see anything
> about fixing this regression reported in the changelog.
>
> And to be 110% certain, I compiled it and tried suspending/resuming;
> it’s still broken.
>
> Is this going to be fixed in 3.10 stable branch?
>
> Thank you very much in advance.
Note that I already suggested to Kiko to try that patch (see
https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/7/14/35 ). I don't know whether Kiko tried
it, as I never received a reply to my suggestion. So, for now, I can
only say that that patch will probably fix the issue.
> [1] first commit that bisect informed as introducing the regression:
>
> | commit c02527487f0c8feb578c0394ad481a97f26d3bd2
> | Author: Srivatsa S. Bhat <[email protected]>
> | Date: Mon Jul 1 00:40:55 2013 +0200
> |
> | cpufreq: Fix cpufreq regression after suspend/resume
> |
> | commit f51e1eb63d9c28cec188337ee656a13be6980cfd upstream.
>
> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/linux.kernel/LUi1pFCxbSI
Paul Bolle
On 22/07/2013 at 17:34 +0200, Paul Bolle wrote:
> Note that I already suggested to Kiko to try that patch (see
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/7/14/35 ). I don't know whether Kiko tried
> it, as I never received a reply to my suggestion. So, for now, I can
> only say that that patch will probably fix the issue.
Hi,
Aww! :(
I saw your message and was going to apply it, but I didn’t fully
understand that thread and wasn’t sure exactly what patch I was supposed
to try and above what version should I apply it (my “kernel skills” are
very very limited).
Then I just went back to 3.10.0 and forgot about it (until I saw the
3.10.2 release announcement). Sorry about that!
If you want me to test any patch, I would be more than happy to do so; I
would be grafeful if you told me exactly what patch to apply and above
which kernel version.
Cheers!
--
Kiko
On 07/22/2013 09:24 PM, Kiko Piris wrote:
> On 22/07/2013 at 17:34 +0200, Paul Bolle wrote:
>
>> Note that I already suggested to Kiko to try that patch (see
>> https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/7/14/35 ). I don't know whether Kiko tried
>> it, as I never received a reply to my suggestion. So, for now, I can
>> only say that that patch will probably fix the issue.
>
> Hi,
>
> Aww! :(
>
> I saw your message and was going to apply it, but I didn’t fully
> understand that thread and wasn’t sure exactly what patch I was supposed
> to try and above what version should I apply it (my “kernel skills” are
> very very limited).
>
> Then I just went back to 3.10.0 and forgot about it (until I saw the
> 3.10.2 release announcement). Sorry about that!
>
> If you want me to test any patch, I would be more than happy to do so; I
> would be grafeful if you told me exactly what patch to apply and above
> which kernel version.
>
Try applying the two mainline commits that I mentioned in my previous
mail, on top of 3.10.2 and check if it fixes your problem.
Regards,
Srivatsa S. Bhat
Kiko,
On Mon, 2013-07-22 at 21:29 +0530, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
> On 07/22/2013 09:24 PM, Kiko Piris wrote:
> > I saw your message and was going to apply it, but I didn’t fully
> > understand that thread and wasn’t sure exactly what patch I was supposed
> > to try and above what version should I apply it (my “kernel skills” are
> > very very limited).
Perhaps my message was unclear, too terse, whatever. I wouldn't have
minded to clarify my message (ie, "apply path x on top of release y).
> > If you want me to test any patch, I would be more than happy to do so; I
> > would be grafeful if you told me exactly what patch to apply and above
> > which kernel version.
>
> Try applying the two mainline commits that I mentioned in my previous
> mail, on top of 3.10.2 and check if it fixes your problem.
Please try what Srivatsa suggested, as Srivatsa understands this issue
much better than I do!
Paul Bolle
On 07/22/2013 09:42 PM, Paul Bolle wrote:
> Kiko,
>
> On Mon, 2013-07-22 at 21:29 +0530, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
>> On 07/22/2013 09:24 PM, Kiko Piris wrote:
>>> I saw your message and was going to apply it, but I didn’t fully
>>> understand that thread and wasn’t sure exactly what patch I was supposed
>>> to try and above what version should I apply it (my “kernel skills” are
>>> very very limited).
>
> Perhaps my message was unclear, too terse, whatever. I wouldn't have
> minded to clarify my message (ie, "apply path x on top of release y).
>
>>> If you want me to test any patch, I would be more than happy to do so; I
>>> would be grafeful if you told me exactly what patch to apply and above
>>> which kernel version.
>>
>> Try applying the two mainline commits that I mentioned in my previous
>> mail, on top of 3.10.2 and check if it fixes your problem.
>
> Please try what Srivatsa suggested, as Srivatsa understands this issue
> much better than I do!
>
Nevertheless, thank you very much for following up on the bug-reports
and suggesting to apply the right fixes. I'm really grateful for that! :-)
Regards,
Srivatsa S. Bhat
On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 08:52:21PM +0530, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
> And both of them have been CC'ed to -stable. So they should be hitting
> the stable tree soon.
>
> Hmm, that reminds me.. whenever a patch cc'ed to stable hit the mainline,
> the patch signers used to receive an automatic email from Greg. I didn't
> get that for the above two patches.. Did the process change due to the
> recent discussions around -stable tree maintenance?
No, it did not change, I just have 150+ pending patches for the
3.11-stable tree that I have yet to get through, give me a few weeks
please.
thanks,
greg k-h
On 07/22/2013 10:23 PM, Greg KH wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 08:52:21PM +0530, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
>> And both of them have been CC'ed to -stable. So they should be hitting
>> the stable tree soon.
>>
>> Hmm, that reminds me.. whenever a patch cc'ed to stable hit the mainline,
>> the patch signers used to receive an automatic email from Greg. I didn't
>> get that for the above two patches.. Did the process change due to the
>> recent discussions around -stable tree maintenance?
>
> No, it did not change, I just have 150+ pending patches for the
> 3.11-stable tree that I have yet to get through, give me a few weeks
> please.
>
Oh! Sure, no problem.
Thank you!
Regards,
Srivatsa S. Bhat
On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 6:12 PM, Paul Bolle <[email protected]> wrote:
> Perhaps my message was unclear, too terse, whatever. I wouldn't have
> minded to clarify my message (ie, "apply path x on top of release y).
You are absolutely right, as I said it’s my fault for not following
through it :-)
> Please try what Srivatsa suggested, as Srivatsa understands this issue
> much better than I do!
I will do it.
I don’t think I will have time to do it today; I probably won’t be
able to do it until tomorrow evening (CEST). And I also have to learn
how to extract a patch from a given commit with git (I'm very very
newbie with this git thing :-P ).
Thank you!
--
Kiko
On 22/07/2013 at 21:29 +0530, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
> Try applying the two mainline commits that I mentioned in my previous
> mail, on top of 3.10.2 and check if it fixes your problem.
It does fix it.
Running 3.10.2 with your two patches, suspended and resumed a couple of
times without a problem (previously it didn’t wake up 100% of the
times).
Thank you both for your help!
Regards.
--
Kiko
On 07/23/2013 02:22 AM, Kiko Piris wrote:
> On 22/07/2013 at 21:29 +0530, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
>
>> Try applying the two mainline commits that I mentioned in my previous
>> mail, on top of 3.10.2 and check if it fixes your problem.
>
> It does fix it.
>
> Running 3.10.2 with your two patches, suspended and resumed a couple of
> times without a problem (previously it didn’t wake up 100% of the
> times).
>
> Thank you both for your help!
>
Thank you for your testing efforts and for confirming that the
patches fix your issue.
Regards,
Srivatsa S. Bhat