Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-79705-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.199.223 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.199.223;
Message-ID: <a831a69f-fa75-4ae2-b7d5-a2bbfd6bd9dd@leemhuis.info>
Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2024 15:31:26 +0100
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Subject: Re: sched/cpufreq: Rework schedutil governor performance estimation -
 Regression bisected
Content-Language: en-US, de-DE
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>,
 Linux regressions mailing list <regressions@lists.linux.dev>
Cc: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
 Doug Smythies <dsmythies@telus.net>,
 Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@linux.intel.com>,
 Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org,
 linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
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>
 <CAJZ5v0hfMuiZCFU6e9TZ7yZV1qER2ymOM7d=AAf5beyMOyHg+g@mail.gmail.com>
From: "Linux regression tracking (Thorsten Leemhuis)"
 <regressions@leemhuis.info>
Reply-To: Linux regressions mailing list <regressions@lists.linux.dev>
In-Reply-To: <CAJZ5v0hfMuiZCFU6e9TZ7yZV1qER2ymOM7d=AAf5beyMOyHg+g@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

On 24.02.24 15:11, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 24, 2024 at 2:44 PM 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 regression
>>>> 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.

Ahh, great, many thx!

>> 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.

Yeah, that totally works for me as well. Again: many thx!

Ciao, Thorsten