Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-79707-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.80.249 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.80.249;
From: "Doug Smythies" <dsmythies@telus.net>
To: "'Linux regressions mailing list'" <regressions@lists.linux.dev>,
	"'Rafael J. Wysocki'" <rafael@kernel.org>
Cc: "'Vincent Guittot'" <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
	"'Srinivas Pandruvada'" <srinivas.pandruvada@linux.intel.com>,
	"'Ingo Molnar'" <mingo@kernel.org>,
	<linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>,
	<linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	"Doug Smythies" <dsmythies@telus.net>
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> <a831a69f-fa75-4ae2-b7d5-a2bbfd6bd9dd@leemhuis.info>
In-Reply-To: <a831a69f-fa75-4ae2-b7d5-a2bbfd6bd9dd@leemhuis.info>
Subject: RE: sched/cpufreq: Rework schedutil governor performance estimation - Regression bisected
Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2024 06:57:35 -0800
Message-ID: <000b01da6731$cdaa7610$68ff6230$@telus.net>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Language: en-ca
Thread-Index: AQHymzO4ho/iLx8gQfQ33x85MlP38AE230H5ATs9P70BGBlhKwIBEbUgAWfpSqoB1OxCigJA5W0AAaqAerYCnLdoYQL2zC8KAiN+cn4BxRsBOLA3rPVg

On 2024.02.24 06:31 Thorsten wrote:
> On 24.02.24 15:11, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>> 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 =
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?=20

Yes it fixes the preexisting issue exposed by 9c0b4bb7f630.

>>>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.
>>=20
>> 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!

Yes, thanks.

>>> 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.

I left the fixes tag off on purpose, because there was never anything =
wrong
with 9c0b4bb7f630. Apologies to Vincent for wasting his time, but thanks
for the help finding the actual issue.
=20
>> 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!

Yes, thanks. A fix tag pointing to the original commit makes sense.

.. Doug