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;
From:   Francisco Jerez <currojerez@riseup.net>
To:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>
Cc:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
        Linux PM <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Amit Kucheria <amit.kucheria@linaro.org>,
        "Pandruvada\, Srinivas" <srinivas.pandruvada@intel.com>,
        Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/28] PM: QoS: Get rid of unuseful code and rework CPU latency QoS interface
In-Reply-To: <CAJZ5v0hH1XiphdakYFPmHLL+hFKw2U3YNU9HSRxsdRUV6ZtM5g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1654227.8mz0SueHsU@kreacher> <87wo8rjsa4.fsf@riseup.net> <CAJZ5v0hAn0V-QhebFt=vqKK6gBLxjTq7SNOWOStt7huCXMSH7g@mail.gmail.com> <CAJZ5v0hrOma52rocMsitvYUK6WxHAa0702_8XJn1UJZVyhz=rQ@mail.gmail.com> <877e0qj4bm.fsf@riseup.net> <CAJZ5v0hH1XiphdakYFPmHLL+hFKw2U3YNU9HSRxsdRUV6ZtM5g@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 21 Feb 2020 14:10:54 -0800
Message-ID: <87ftf3fv69.fsf@riseup.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="==-=-=";
        micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

--==-=-=
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=-=-="

--=-=-=
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline

"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org> writes:

> On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 9:09 AM Francisco Jerez <currojerez@riseup.net> wrote:
>>
>> "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org> writes:
>>
>> > On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 1:16 AM Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@kernel.org> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 12:31 AM Francisco Jerez <currojerez@riseup.net> wrote:
>> >> >
>
> [cut]
>
>> >
>> > And BTW, posting patches as RFC is fine even if they have not been
>> > tested.  At least you let people know that you work on something this
>> > way, so if they work on changes in the same area, they may take that
>> > into consideration.
>> >
>>
>> Sure, that was going to be the first RFC.
>>
>> > Also if there are objections to your proposal, you may save quite a
>> > bit of time by sending it early.
>> >
>> > It is unfortunate that this series has clashed with the changes that
>> > you were about to propose, but in this particular case in my view it
>> > is better to clean up things and start over.
>> >
>>
>> Luckily it doesn't clash with the second RFC I was meaning to send,
>> maybe we should just skip the first?
>
> Yes, please.
>
>> Or maybe it's valuable as a curiosity anyway?
>
> No, let's just focus on the latest one.
>
> Thanks!

We don't seem to have reached much of an agreement on the general
direction of RFC2, so I can't really get started with it.  Here is RFC1
for the record:

https://github.com/curro/linux/commits/intel_pstate-lp-hwp-v10.8-alt

Specifically the following patch conflicts with this series:

https://github.com/curro/linux/commit/9a16f35531bbb76d38493da892ece088e31dc2e0

Series improves performance-per-watt of GfxBench gl_4 (AKA Car Chase) by
over 15% on my system with the branch above, actual FPS "only" improves
about 5.9% on ICL laptop due to it being very lightly TDP-bound with its
rather huge TDP.  The performance of almost every graphics benchmark
I've tried improves significantly with it (a number of SynMark
test-cases are improved by around 40% in perf-per-watt, Egypt
perf-per-watt improves by about 25%).

Hopefully we can come up with some alternative plan of action.

--=-=-=--

--==-=-=
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iHUEAREIAB0WIQST8OekYz69PM20/4aDmTidfVK/WwUCXlBVbgAKCRCDmTidfVK/
W/gtAP0dDbIUxAKRzrls42EXSlpM90oykm1O5NuaXw5FQsrp6wD7BqAQtSgtC7kt
xSSD+vYRPoTK1cLrAHb6gTD2l3BeQRQ=
=U3Wm
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--==-=-=--