Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 16 Nov 2013 20:47:24 +0530 | Subject | Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: suspend/resume governors with PM notifiers | From | Viresh Kumar <> |
| |
On 16 November 2013 19:59, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@rjwysocki.net> wrote:
> Well, disabling it for the whole duration of suspend/resume and/or hibernation > may not be the right approach entirely, unless we force the pax perf of the
s/pax/max ?
> boot CPU at least in addition to that. Otherwise the latency of suspend and > the subsequent resume will depend on what perf level the CPUs where before > disabling the governors, which is not desirable at al.
Well that is pretty much doable.
>> And these are the notifications that we send: >> - PM_HIBERNATION_PREPARE >> - PM_POST_HIBERNATION >> - PM_RESTORE_PREPARE >> - PM_POST_RESTORE >> >> If I am not wrong I need to stop governors on PM_HIBERNATION_PREPARE and need to >> start them back on: PM_POST_HIBERNATION (I am a bit confused with this one. Does >> this POST_HIBERNATION one happens at the end of going into hibernation? or after >> booting back? I need a notifier at the end of restore).. > > You'd need both PM_POST_HIBERNATION and PM_POST_RESTORE, but I wouldn't really > like cpufreq governors to be disabled throughout the whole hibernation.
So PM_POST_HIBERNATION is called just before shutting off the system? And PM_POST_RESTORE is called after system is resumed from saved image?
> Actually, we use CPU offline/online during system suspend/resume to avoid > having to do stuff like this from PM notifiers.
I didn't get the logic behind this one..
> So I'd like the original problem to be addressed in a different way.
Hmm..
> PS > The sisk.pl address will start bouncing shortly, so please replace it with > rjw@rjwysocki.net in your address book.
Okay...
| |