Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 20 Nov 2022 19:07:01 +0100 | Subject | Re: [PATCH v1] Revert "cpufreq: schedutil: Move max CPU capacity to sugov_policy" #forregzbot | From | Thorsten Leemhuis <> |
| |
[Note: this mail is primarily send for documentation purposes and/or for regzbot, my Linux kernel regression tracking bot. That's why I removed most or all folks from the list of recipients, but left any that looked like a mailing lists. These mails usually contain '#forregzbot' in the subject, to make them easy to spot and filter out.]
[TLDR: I'm adding this regression report to the list of tracked regressions; all text from me you find below is based on a few templates paragraphs you might have encountered already already in similar form.]
Hi, this is your Linux kernel regression tracker.
On 10.11.22 20:57, Sam Wu wrote: > This reverts commit 6d5afdc97ea71958287364a1f1d07e59ef151b11. > > On a Pixel 6 device, it is observed that this commit increases > latency by approximately 50ms, or 20%, in migrating a task > that requires full CPU utilization from a LITTLE CPU to Fmax > on a big CPU. Reverting this change restores the latency back > to its original baseline value. > > Fixes: 6d5afdc97ea7 ("cpufreq: schedutil: Move max CPU capacity to sugov_policy") > Cc: Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@arm.com> > Cc: Saravana Kannan <saravanak@google.com> > Cc: Isaac J. Manjarres <isaacmanjarres@google.com> > Signed-off-by: Sam Wu <wusamuel@google.com>
Thanks for the report. To be sure below issue doesn't fall through the cracks unnoticed, I'm adding it to regzbot, my Linux kernel regression tracking bot:
#regzbot ^introduced 6d5afdc97ea7 #regzbot title cpufreq: schedutil: improved latency on Pixel 6 #regzbot ignore-activity
This isn't a regression? This issue or a fix for it are already discussed somewhere else? It was fixed already? You want to clarify when the regression started to happen? Or point out I got the title or something else totally wrong? Then just reply -- ideally with also telling regzbot about it, as explained here: https://linux-regtracking.leemhuis.info/tracked-regression/
Reminder for developers: When fixing the issue, add 'Link:' tags pointing to the report (the mail this one replies to), as explained for in the Linux kernel's documentation; above webpage explains why this is important for tracked regressions.
Ciao, Thorsten (wearing his 'the Linux kernel's regression tracker' hat)
P.S.: As the Linux kernel's regression tracker I deal with a lot of reports and sometimes miss something important when writing mails like this. If that's the case here, don't hesitate to tell me in a public reply, it's in everyone's interest to set the public record straight.
| |