[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87zhc4ybbt.fsf@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2020 11:32:06 +0100
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Rong Chen <rong.a.chen@...el.com>,
Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"maintainer\:X86 ARCHITECTURE \(32-BIT AND 64-BIT\)" <x86@...nel.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Mark Gross <mgross@...ux.intel.com>,
Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
Linux PM <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@...ux.intel.com>,
Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
Darren Hart <dvhart@...radead.org>,
Andy Shevchenko <andy@...radead.org>,
ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-edac@...r.kernel.org,
Platform Driver <platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org>,
Jean Delvare <jdelvare@...e.com>,
Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>,
linux-hwmon@...r.kernel.org, Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@...el.com>,
Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>,
Amit Kucheria <amit.kucheria@...durent.com>,
Chanwoo Choi <cw00.choi@...sung.com>,
Jacob Pan <jacob.jun.pan@...ux.intel.com>,
Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>,
Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>,
linux-mmc <linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org>,
Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org,
Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.com>,
ALSA Development Mailing List <alsa-devel@...a-project.org>,
Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
linux-crypto <linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org>, lkp@...ts.01.org
Subject: Re: [cpufreq] 06c4d00466: will-it-scale.per_process_ops -53.4% regression
Rong Chen <rong.a.chen@...el.com> writes:
> On 3/24/20 6:24 PM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 8:02 AM kernel test robot <rong.a.chen@...el.com> wrote:
>>> Greeting,
>>>
>>> FYI, we noticed a -53.4% regression of will-it-scale.per_process_ops due to commit:
>>> commit: 06c4d00466eb374841bc84c39af19b3161ff6917 ("[patch 09/22] cpufreq: Convert to new X86 CPU match macros")
>>> url: https://github.com/0day-ci/linux/commits/Thomas-Gleixner/x86-devicetable-Move-x86-specific-macro-out-of-generic-code/20200321-031729
>>> base: https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/rafael/linux-pm.git linux-next
>>>
>>> in testcase: will-it-scale
>>> on test machine: 4 threads Intel(R) Core(TM) i3-3220 CPU @ 3.30GHz with 8G memory
>>> with following parameters:
>>
>> drivers/cpufreq/speedstep-centrino.c change missed the terminator,
>> perhaps it's a culprit, because I don't believe removing dups and
>> reordering lines may affect this.
>> Can you restore terminator there and re-test?
>>
>
> I have retested with the change, but it has no effect on the performance.
Bah. The binary equivalence testing detected this, but I obvioulsy
missed it. Delta fix below.
Thanks,
tglx
8<--------------
--- a/drivers/cpufreq/intel_pstate.c
+++ b/drivers/cpufreq/intel_pstate.c
@@ -2727,7 +2727,7 @@ static inline void intel_pstate_request_
#define X86_MATCH_HWP(model, hwp_mode) \
X86_MATCH_VENDOR_FAM_MODEL_FEATURE(INTEL, 6, INTEL_FAM6_##model, \
- X86_FEATURE_APERFMPERF, hwp_mode)
+ X86_FEATURE_HWP, hwp_mode)
static const struct x86_cpu_id hwp_support_ids[] __initconst = {
X86_MATCH_HWP(BROADWELL_X, INTEL_PSTATE_HWP_BROADWELL),
Powered by blists - more mailing lists