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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <alpine.DEB.2.22.394.2110241452460.2997@hadrien>
 <CAAYoRsXeQravNXKsWAZvacMmE_iBzaQ+mQxNbB5jcD_vkny+Sg@mail.gmail.com>
 <alpine.DEB.2.22.394.2110261658440.3825@hadrien> <CAAYoRsWXew+9Pch_9ux+UK0LFwy+211d2LmNLGKF_UTr3eS2Fw@mail.gmail.com>
 <alpine.DEB.2.22.394.2110281908150.9518@hadrien>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.22.394.2110281908150.9518@hadrien>
From:   "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>
Date:   Thu, 28 Oct 2021 19:29:12 +0200
Message-ID: <CAJZ5v0ihVdrZ1ogEc34+QgZUJW5-=RzP34-U1_91VTcLhbc4Nw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: problem in changing from active to passive mode
To:     Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@inria.fr>
Cc:     Doug Smythies <dsmythies@telus.net>,
        Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@linux.intel.com>,
        Len Brown <lenb@kernel.org>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
        Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>,
        Linux PM list <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Oct 28, 2021 at 7:10 PM Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@inria.fr> wrote:
>
> > Now, for your graph 3, are you saying this pseudo
> > code of the process is repeatable?:
> >
> > Power up the system, booting kernel 5.9
> > switch to passive/schedutil.
> > wait X minutes for system to settle
> > do benchmark, result ~13 seconds
> > re-boot to kernel 5.15-RC
> > switch to passive/schedutil.
> > wait X minutes for system to settle
> > do benchmark, result ~40 seconds
> > re-boot to kernel 5.9
> > switch to passive/schedutil.
> > wait X minutes for system to settle
> > do benchmark, result ~28 seconds
>
> In the first boot of 5.9, the des (desired?) field of the HWP_REQUEST
> register is 0 and in the second boot (after booting 5.15 and entering
> passive mode) it is 10.  I don't know though if this is a bug or a
> feature...

It looks like a bug.

I think that the desired value is not cleared on driver exit which
should happen.  Let me see if I can do a quick patch for that.