[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAJZ5v0g30Mu2h1q0w5pQdYUko2=zrZcnyaCDE2ho-4QEPWP5ZQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2017 15:25:01 +0200
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
To: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
Rafael Wysocki <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
Lists linaro-kernel <linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org>,
Linux PM <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
Juri Lelli <Juri.Lelli@....com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Patrick Bellasi <patrick.bellasi@....com>,
John <john.ettedgui@...il.com>,
Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@...ux.intel.com>,
Joel Fernandes <joelaf@...gle.com>,
Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] cpufreq: schedutil: Fix 4.12 regressions
On Fri, Jun 9, 2017 at 2:32 PM, Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org> wrote:
> On 9 June 2017 at 17:54, Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@...nel.org> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Fri, Jun 9, 2017 at 12:15 PM, Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org> wrote:
>>> Hi Rafael,
>>>
>>> I have identified some regressions with the schedutil governor which
>>> happen due to one of your patches that got merged in 4.12-rc1.
>>>
>>> This series fixes all the drivers which provide a ->target_index()
>>> callback but doesn't fix the drivers which provide ->target() callback.
>>>
>>> Such platforms need to implement the ->resolve_freq() callback in order
>>> to get this fixed and I only had hardware for testing intel_pstate,
>>> which I fixed in this series.
>>>
>>> I am wondering if there is another way to fix this issue (than what I
>>> tried) or if we should revert the offending commit (39b64aa1c007) and
>>> look for other solutions.
>>
>> To my eyes, patch [1/3] fixes the problem and then the remaining ones
>> deal with the issues resulting from that.
>
> So I saw the issue reported and fixed by 2/3 first and noticed 1/3 while
> doing code reviews. So, 1/3 isn't the culprit really as the problem happens
> without it as well.
I see.
OK, let me consider that.
Thanks,
Rafael
Powered by blists - more mailing lists