From: Tony Lindgren <tony@atomide.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Kuninori Morimoto <kuninori.morimoto.gx@renesas.com>
Cc: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-omap@vger.kernel.org,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>,
linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: PM regression in next
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2018 11:00:46 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180112190046.GD4821@atomide.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180112012019.GA4059@atomide.com>
* Tony Lindgren <tony@atomide.com> [180112 01:20]:
> * Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> [180112 00:45]:
> > On Thu, 11 Jan 2018 16:23:22 -0800 Tony Lindgren <tony@atomide.com> wrote:
> >
> > > * Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> [180112 00:18]:
> > > > On Thu, 11 Jan 2018 16:01:13 -0800 Tony Lindgren <tony@atomide.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi all,
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm seeing a considerable idle power consumption regression in
> > > > > Linux next, with power consumption for my idle test system going
> > > > > to 17.5mW compared to the usual 8mW on my test device.
> > > > >
> > > > > Git bisect points to merge commit e130bc1d00a4 ("Merge branch
> > > > > 'akpm-current/current'") being the first bad commit.
> > > > >
> > > > > I have also verified that commit 70286688e5ad ("ipc/mqueue.c:
> > > > > have RT tasks queue in by priority in wq_add()") is good, and
> > > > > commit e2d7fe89e8ae ("Merge remote-tracking branch
> > > > > 'init_task/init_task'") is good.
> > > >
> > > > Do you mean that everything up to and including 70286688e5ad
> > > > ("ipc/mqueue.c: have RT tasks queue in by priority in wq_add()") is
> > > > good?
> > >
> > > Yes I'm not seeing the regression in your branch at commit
> > > 70286688e5ad. I'm seeing it only with the merge commit
> > > e130bc1d00a4.
> > >
> >
> > That's weird. All I'm seeing between 70286688e5ad and end-of-mm is:
...
> Well there are some changes in merge commit e130bc1d00a4..
So it seems that the Makefile changes in Linux next merge commit
e130bc1d00a4 cause changes with CONFIG_CC_STACKPROTECTOR_AUTO=y.
With next-20180112 out now, that's now commit 3823b7cc7a5e
("Merge branch 'akpm-current/current'"). Not sure if that's a
bug or not..
Anyways, I reran my "bisect boot wait-idle measure" test with
CONFIG_CC_STACKPROTECTOR_STRONG=y selected to rule out the AUTO
option, and bisect now points to a different commit that makes
more sense for my test case.
It's commit 3bb0f7c31b1a ("ASoC: don't use snd_soc_write/read
on twl4030"). And that is for the PMIC on my test system, so
adding Kuninori and Mark to the thread :)
Kuninori, it seems that commit 3bb0f7c31b1a causes higher
power consumption on an idle system on omap3 using twl4030.
Reverting 3bb0f7c31b1a makes things behave again. My guess
is that twl4030_read does not do the same as snd_soc_read
in the driver?
Regards,
Tony
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: tony@atomide.com (Tony Lindgren)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: PM regression in next
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2018 11:00:46 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180112190046.GD4821@atomide.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180112012019.GA4059@atomide.com>
* Tony Lindgren <tony@atomide.com> [180112 01:20]:
> * Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> [180112 00:45]:
> > On Thu, 11 Jan 2018 16:23:22 -0800 Tony Lindgren <tony@atomide.com> wrote:
> >
> > > * Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> [180112 00:18]:
> > > > On Thu, 11 Jan 2018 16:01:13 -0800 Tony Lindgren <tony@atomide.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi all,
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm seeing a considerable idle power consumption regression in
> > > > > Linux next, with power consumption for my idle test system going
> > > > > to 17.5mW compared to the usual 8mW on my test device.
> > > > >
> > > > > Git bisect points to merge commit e130bc1d00a4 ("Merge branch
> > > > > 'akpm-current/current'") being the first bad commit.
> > > > >
> > > > > I have also verified that commit 70286688e5ad ("ipc/mqueue.c:
> > > > > have RT tasks queue in by priority in wq_add()") is good, and
> > > > > commit e2d7fe89e8ae ("Merge remote-tracking branch
> > > > > 'init_task/init_task'") is good.
> > > >
> > > > Do you mean that everything up to and including 70286688e5ad
> > > > ("ipc/mqueue.c: have RT tasks queue in by priority in wq_add()") is
> > > > good?
> > >
> > > Yes I'm not seeing the regression in your branch at commit
> > > 70286688e5ad. I'm seeing it only with the merge commit
> > > e130bc1d00a4.
> > >
> >
> > That's weird. All I'm seeing between 70286688e5ad and end-of-mm is:
...
> Well there are some changes in merge commit e130bc1d00a4..
So it seems that the Makefile changes in Linux next merge commit
e130bc1d00a4 cause changes with CONFIG_CC_STACKPROTECTOR_AUTO=y.
With next-20180112 out now, that's now commit 3823b7cc7a5e
("Merge branch 'akpm-current/current'"). Not sure if that's a
bug or not..
Anyways, I reran my "bisect boot wait-idle measure" test with
CONFIG_CC_STACKPROTECTOR_STRONG=y selected to rule out the AUTO
option, and bisect now points to a different commit that makes
more sense for my test case.
It's commit 3bb0f7c31b1a ("ASoC: don't use snd_soc_write/read
on twl4030"). And that is for the PMIC on my test system, so
adding Kuninori and Mark to the thread :)
Kuninori, it seems that commit 3bb0f7c31b1a causes higher
power consumption on an idle system on omap3 using twl4030.
Reverting 3bb0f7c31b1a makes things behave again. My guess
is that twl4030_read does not do the same as snd_soc_read
in the driver?
Regards,
Tony
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-01-12 19:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 72+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-01-12 0:01 PM regression in next Tony Lindgren
2018-01-12 0:01 ` Tony Lindgren
2018-01-12 0:18 ` Andrew Morton
2018-01-12 0:18 ` Andrew Morton
2018-01-12 0:23 ` Tony Lindgren
2018-01-12 0:23 ` Tony Lindgren
2018-01-12 0:45 ` Andrew Morton
2018-01-12 0:45 ` Andrew Morton
2018-01-12 0:45 ` Andrew Morton
2018-01-12 1:20 ` Tony Lindgren
2018-01-12 1:20 ` Tony Lindgren
2018-01-12 1:32 ` Tony Lindgren
2018-01-12 1:32 ` Tony Lindgren
2018-01-12 12:23 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2018-01-12 12:23 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2018-01-12 12:30 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2018-01-12 12:30 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2018-01-12 13:01 ` Lars-Peter Clausen
2018-01-12 13:01 ` Lars-Peter Clausen
2018-01-12 13:16 ` Andrew Lunn
2018-01-12 13:16 ` Andrew Lunn
2018-01-12 13:52 ` Tony Lindgren
2018-01-12 13:52 ` Tony Lindgren
2018-01-12 13:55 ` Andrew Lunn
2018-01-12 13:55 ` Andrew Lunn
2018-01-12 14:14 ` Tony Lindgren
2018-01-12 14:14 ` Tony Lindgren
2018-01-12 19:00 ` Tony Lindgren [this message]
2018-01-12 19:00 ` Tony Lindgren
2018-01-12 19:12 ` Mark Brown
2018-01-12 19:12 ` Mark Brown
2018-01-12 21:07 ` Tony Lindgren
2018-01-12 21:07 ` Tony Lindgren
2018-01-12 21:15 ` Mark Brown
2018-01-12 21:15 ` Mark Brown
2018-01-12 21:50 ` Tony Lindgren
2018-01-12 21:50 ` Tony Lindgren
2018-01-12 22:11 ` Mark Brown
2018-01-12 22:11 ` Mark Brown
2018-01-12 22:49 ` Tony Lindgren
2018-01-12 22:49 ` Tony Lindgren
2018-01-12 22:59 ` Mark Brown
2018-01-12 22:59 ` Mark Brown
2018-01-15 1:45 ` Kuninori Morimoto
2018-01-15 1:45 ` Kuninori Morimoto
2018-01-15 16:50 ` Tony Lindgren
2018-01-15 16:50 ` Tony Lindgren
2018-01-15 17:19 ` Mark Brown
2018-01-15 17:19 ` Mark Brown
2018-01-15 17:52 ` Tony Lindgren
2018-01-15 17:52 ` Tony Lindgren
2018-01-15 17:56 ` Mark Brown
2018-01-15 17:56 ` Mark Brown
2018-01-15 17:56 ` Mark Brown
2018-01-15 18:06 ` Tony Lindgren
2018-01-15 18:06 ` Tony Lindgren
2018-01-15 18:13 ` Mark Brown
2018-01-15 18:13 ` Mark Brown
2018-01-15 18:55 ` Tony Lindgren
2018-01-15 18:55 ` Tony Lindgren
2018-01-16 0:38 ` Kuninori Morimoto
2018-01-16 0:38 ` Kuninori Morimoto
2018-01-16 0:38 ` Kuninori Morimoto
2018-01-17 9:47 ` Peter Ujfalusi
2018-01-17 9:47 ` Peter Ujfalusi
2018-01-17 9:47 ` Peter Ujfalusi
2018-01-15 23:22 ` Kuninori Morimoto
2018-01-15 23:22 ` Kuninori Morimoto
2018-01-16 0:36 ` Tony Lindgren
2018-01-16 0:36 ` Tony Lindgren
2018-01-12 21:38 ` Mark Brown
2018-01-12 21:38 ` Mark Brown
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20180112190046.GD4821@atomide.com \
--to=tony@atomide.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=broonie@kernel.org \
--cc=kuninori.morimoto.gx@renesas.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-omap@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com \
--cc=sfr@canb.auug.org.au \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.