Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Thu, 24 Jun 2021 08:24:14 +0530
From:   Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
To:     Qian Cai <quic_qiancai@quicinc.com>
Cc:     Rafael Wysocki <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
        Ionela Voinescu <ionela.voinescu@arm.com>,
        Ben Segall <bsegall@google.com>,
        Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@redhat.com>,
        Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
        Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V3 0/4] cpufreq: cppc: Add support for frequency
 invariance
Message-ID: <20210624025414.4iszkovggk6lg6hj@vireshk-i7>
References: <cover.1624266901.git.viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
 <09a39f5c-b47b-a931-bf23-dc43229fb2dd@quicinc.com>
 <20210623041613.v2lo3nidpgw37abl@vireshk-i7>
 <2c540a58-4fef-5a3d-85b4-8862721b6c4f@quicinc.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <2c540a58-4fef-5a3d-85b4-8862721b6c4f@quicinc.com>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20180716-391-311a52
Precedence: bulk

On 23-06-21, 08:57, Qian Cai wrote:
> Viresh, I am afraid I don't feel comfortable yet. I have a few new tests in
> development, and will provide an update once ready.

Oh sure, np.

> Also, I noticed the delivered perf is even smaller than lowest_perf (100).

> # cat /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu8/acpi_cppc/feedback_ctrs
>  ref:103377547901 del:54540736873
> # cat /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu8/acpi_cppc/feedback_ctrs
>  ref:103379170101 del:54541599117
> 
> 100 * (54541599117 - 54540736873) / (103379170101 - 103377547901) = 53
> 
> My understanding is that the delivered perf should fail into the range between
> lowest_perf and highest_perf. Is that assumption correct? This happens on
> 5.4-based kernel, so I am in process running your series on that system to see
> if there is any differences. In any case, if it is a bug it is pre-existing,
> but I'd like to understand a bit better in that front first.

Vincent:

Can that happen because of CPU idle ?

-- 
viresh