Re: Commit 554c8aa8ecad causing severe performance degression with pcc-cpufreq

[Rafael J. Wysocki]

On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 4:03 PM, Andreas Herrmann <aherrmann@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 12:21:36PM +0200, Andreas Herrmann wrote:
>> On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 12:09:21PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>
>   ---8<---
>
>> > OK, the patch is below.
>> >
>> > First, I hope that if "Collaborative Power Control" is disabled, it will
>> > simply hide the PCCH object and so intel_pstate will still not load then.
>>
>> PCCH is hidden in that case.
>>
>> > The main question basically is what the OS is expected to do if
>> > "Dynamic Power Savings Mode" is set.  If we are *expected* to use
>> > the PCC interface then, intel_pstate may not work in that case, but
>> > I suspect that the PCC interface allows extra energy to be saved
>> > over what is possible without it.
>>
>> I'll test it and see what happens.
>
> I've tested it on top of v4.18-rc5-36-g30b06abfb92b. intel_pstate now
> loads instead of pcc-cpufreq and system looks stable.
>
> When disabling "Collaborative Power Control" no cpufreq driver is loaded
> (as expected).
>
> Performance (with kernbench) is as expected (always better than any
> brew of pcc-cpufreq + misc modifications to this driver + partial
> rollback of commit 554c8aa8ecad).
>
> If you like you can add either Tested-by or
> Reviewed-by: Andreas Herrmann <aherrmann@xxxxxxxx>
>
> I think this patch should be tagged for 4.17-stable.

OK, thank you for testing!