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> <CAJZ5v0ihVdrZ1ogEc34+QgZUJW5-=RzP34-U1_91VTcLhbc4Nw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAJZ5v0ihVdrZ1ogEc34+QgZUJW5-=RzP34-U1_91VTcLhbc4Nw@mail.gmail.com>
From:   "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>
Date:   Thu, 28 Oct 2021 19:57:09 +0200
Message-ID: <CAJZ5v0ij105B05xPGgfauwFv1KhXRnwh5p28R1y11qKWjxUOhg@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: multipart/mixed; boundary="00000000000030c37305cf6d71b9"
Precedence: bulk

--00000000000030c37305cf6d71b9
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

On Thu, Oct 28, 2021 at 7:29 PM Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> 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.

Please check the behavior with the attached patch applied.

--00000000000030c37305cf6d71b9
Content-Type: text/x-patch; charset="US-ASCII"; 
	name="intel_pstate-clear-desired-on-offline.patch"
Content-Disposition: attachment; 
	filename="intel_pstate-clear-desired-on-offline.patch"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Content-ID: <f_kvb8zh900>
X-Attachment-Id: f_kvb8zh900

LS0tCiBkcml2ZXJzL2NwdWZyZXEvaW50ZWxfcHN0YXRlLmMgfCAgICAzICsrKwogMSBmaWxlIGNo
YW5nZWQsIDMgaW5zZXJ0aW9ucygrKQoKSW5kZXg6IGxpbnV4LXBtL2RyaXZlcnMvY3B1ZnJlcS9p
bnRlbF9wc3RhdGUuYwo9PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09
PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09Ci0tLSBsaW51eC1wbS5vcmlnL2RyaXZlcnMvY3B1ZnJl
cS9pbnRlbF9wc3RhdGUuYworKysgbGludXgtcG0vZHJpdmVycy9jcHVmcmVxL2ludGVsX3BzdGF0
ZS5jCkBAIC0xMDE1LDYgKzEwMTUsOSBAQCBzdGF0aWMgdm9pZCBpbnRlbF9wc3RhdGVfaHdwX29m
ZmxpbmUoc3RyCiAJdmFsdWUgfD0gSFdQX01BWF9QRVJGKG1pbl9wZXJmKTsKIAl2YWx1ZSB8PSBI
V1BfTUlOX1BFUkYobWluX3BlcmYpOwogCisJLyogQ2xlYXIgREVTSVJFRF9QRVJGICovCisJdmFs
dWUgJj0gfkhXUF9ERVNJUkVEX1BFUkYofjBMKTsKKwogCS8qIFNldCBFUFAgdG8gbWluICovCiAJ
aWYgKGJvb3RfY3B1X2hhcyhYODZfRkVBVFVSRV9IV1BfRVBQKSkKIAkJdmFsdWUgfD0gSFdQX0VO
RVJHWV9QRVJGX1BSRUZFUkVOQ0UoSFdQX0VQUF9QT1dFUlNBVkUpOwo=
--00000000000030c37305cf6d71b9--