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: <a831a69f-fa75-4ae2-b7d5-a2bbfd6bd9dd@leemhuis.info>
Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2024 15:31:26 +0100
From: "Linux regression tracking (Thorsten Leemhuis)"
 <regressions@...mhuis.info>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
 Linux regressions mailing list <regressions@...ts.linux.dev>
Cc: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
 Doug Smythies <dsmythies@...us.net>,
 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 24.02.24 15:11, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> 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.

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