Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-79702-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1;
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <002f01da5ba0$49cbf810$dd63e830$@telus.net> <CAKfTPtA-jizig0sh_shmkAMudAxDPYHP0SdanZe=Gc57jVKouQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <003801da5bae$02d6f550$0884dff0$@telus.net> <CAKfTPtC7pOtb-srrgQLFbTueLLDqHay+GQBm9=sNsnZDg_UYSQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <000b01da5d09$8219f900$864deb00$@telus.net> <CAKfTPtB8v30LzL3EufRqbfcCceS2nQ_2G8ZHuoD5N1_y-pvFbg@mail.gmail.com>
 <001b01da5ea7$86c7a070$9456e150$@telus.net> <CAKfTPtD4Un-A2FcdsvKnNZskG=xH0wrsT3xzaWDs--mQjgZ3rg@mail.gmail.com>
 <003001da6061$bbad1e30$33075a90$@telus.net> <CAKfTPtC82YXOw5yYPNkHHyF+DYSG+Ts9OjnwsVjbd_HcUsZQMg@mail.gmail.com>
 <c03533dc-73fc-4d97-8248-0affbddbed32@leemhuis.info>
In-Reply-To: <c03533dc-73fc-4d97-8248-0affbddbed32@leemhuis.info>
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>
Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2024 15:11:59 +0100
Message-ID: <CAJZ5v0hfMuiZCFU6e9TZ7yZV1qER2ymOM7d=AAf5beyMOyHg+g@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: sched/cpufreq: Rework schedutil governor performance estimation -
 Regression bisected
To: Linux regressions mailing list <regressions@lists.linux.dev>
Cc: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>, Doug Smythies <dsmythies@telus.net>, 
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>, 
	Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@linux.intel.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>, 
	linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Sat, Feb 24, 2024 at 2:44=E2=80=AFPM Linux regression tracking (Thorsten
Leemhuis) <regressions@leemhuis.info> wrote:
>
> On 16.02.24 14:17, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> > On Thu, 15 Feb 2024 at 23:53, Doug Smythies <dsmythies@telus.net> wrote=
:
> >>
> >> This email thread appears as if it might be moving away from a regress=
ion
> >> caused by your commit towards a conclusion that your commit exposed
> >> a pre-existing bug in the intel_psate.c code.
> > Ok
>
> Well, even in that case it's a regression that must be fixed -- ideally
> before 6.8. Did anything happen towards that?
>
> I noticed that Doug send the fix "cpufreq: intel_pstate: fix pstate
> limits enforcement for adjust_perf call back":
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240217213010.2466-1-dsmythies@telus.net/
>
> Is that supposed to fix the problem? Looks a bit like it, but I'm not
> totally sure. In that case I'd say it likely should be applied to 6.8,
> but Rafael apparently applied it to 6.9.

This hasn't reached linux-next yet, so I rebased it on top of -rc5 in
order to push it as a 6.8 fix.

> I'd also say that a Fixes: would be good as well (to ensure that fix is
> also backported in case anyone backports 9c0b4bb7f630), but I know that
> subsystems handle this differently.

So I added a Fixes: tag to it, but it points to the original change
that missed the check.

Thanks!