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>
 <CAJZ5v0ij105B05xPGgfauwFv1KhXRnwh5p28R1y11qKWjxUOhg@mail.gmail.com> <CAJZ5v0gAax-uz+shKv4MNBiSBPKGroQGNKdYyUK4v6sRS15o_w@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAJZ5v0gAax-uz+shKv4MNBiSBPKGroQGNKdYyUK4v6sRS15o_w@mail.gmail.com>
From:   "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>
Date:   Thu, 28 Oct 2021 20:43:03 +0200
Message-ID: <CAJZ5v0iM2=VAymcmBXKVL0SVt-P6iswoYqXAzuzBuQpUhKnZjA@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 8:16 PM Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Oct 28, 2021 at 7:57 PM Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@kernel.org> wrote:
> >
> > 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...

I think I didn't understand you correctly, sorry about that.

In 5.15-rc (starting in 5.11-rc) the desired perf field in HWP_REQUEST
is used in the passive mode, so that is expected.

However, it may not be reset to 0 when going back from the passive to
the active mode.

> > > 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.
>
> Well, actually, the previous one won't do anything, because the
> desired perf field is already cleared in this function before writing
> the MSR, so please try the one attached to this message instead.

So with the last patch applied, can you please check if you get
desired=0 with 5.15-rc when switching driver modes from passive to
active?  FWIW, this works for me here.

In any case, the desired perf value in HWP_REQUEST is expected to be
reset to 0 on system restart.