linux-kernel - Re: sched/cpufreq: Rework schedutil governor performance estimation

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAJZ5v0hfMuiZCFU6e9TZ7yZV1qER2ymOM7d=AAf5beyMOyHg+g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2024 15:11:59 +0100
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
To: Linux regressions mailing list <regressions@...ts.linux.dev>
Cc: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>, Doug Smythies <dsmythies@...us.net>, 
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>, 
	Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@...ux.intel.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, 
	linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: sched/cpufreq: Rework schedutil governor performance estimation -
 Regression bisected

On Sat, Feb 24, 2024 at 2:44 PM Linux regression tracking (Thorsten
Leemhuis) <regressions@...mhuis.info> wrote:
>
> On 16.02.24 14:17, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> > On Thu, 15 Feb 2024 at 23:53, Doug Smythies <dsmythies@...us.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.

> 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!