Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20180717140336.ayovaz4ksdlak6bb@suselix>
References: <20180717065048.74mmgk4t5utjaa6a@suselix> <20180717092721.onkaf3qsu7te6syi@suselix>
 <20180717093620.ym6phfmr3rfvsxyo@suselix> <3724084.DyflrVPzDS@aspire.rjw.lan>
 <20180717102136.snayvzmv2h3dcwiq@suselix> <20180717140336.ayovaz4ksdlak6bb@suselix>
From:   "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>
Date:   Tue, 17 Jul 2018 17:29:21 +0200
Message-ID: <CAJZ5v0ipaaCYwsxdi7Mw6nPzw_76cKQ50M=aM+kJrY+FhdV4pg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Commit 554c8aa8ecad causing severe performance degression with pcc-cpufreq
To:     Andreas Herrmann <aherrmann@suse.com>
Cc:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org>,
        Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>,
        Linux PM <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 4:03 PM, Andreas Herrmann <aherrmann@suse.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 12:21:36PM +0200, Andreas Herrmann wrote:
>> On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 12:09:21PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>
>   ---8<---
>
>> > OK, the patch is below.
>> >
>> > First, I hope that if "Collaborative Power Control" is disabled, it will
>> > simply hide the PCCH object and so intel_pstate will still not load then.
>>
>> PCCH is hidden in that case.
>>
>> > The main question basically is what the OS is expected to do if
>> > "Dynamic Power Savings Mode" is set.  If we are *expected* to use
>> > the PCC interface then, intel_pstate may not work in that case, but
>> > I suspect that the PCC interface allows extra energy to be saved
>> > over what is possible without it.
>>
>> I'll test it and see what happens.
>
> I've tested it on top of v4.18-rc5-36-g30b06abfb92b. intel_pstate now
> loads instead of pcc-cpufreq and system looks stable.
>
> When disabling "Collaborative Power Control" no cpufreq driver is loaded
> (as expected).
>
> Performance (with kernbench) is as expected (always better than any
> brew of pcc-cpufreq + misc modifications to this driver + partial
> rollback of commit 554c8aa8ecad).
>
> If you like you can add either Tested-by or
> Reviewed-by: Andreas Herrmann <aherrmann@suse.com>
>
> I think this patch should be tagged for 4.17-stable.

OK, thank you for testing!