From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Andreas Herrmann <aherrmann@suse.com>
Subject: Re: Commit 554c8aa8ecad causing severe performance degression with
 pcc-cpufreq
Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2018 11:27:21 +0200
Message-ID: <20180717092721.onkaf3qsu7te6syi@suselix>
References: <20180717065048.74mmgk4t5utjaa6a@suselix>
 <CAJZ5v0ihkNKPrtzKynt8jgQi1JjwCm+SdoUnu4XqoPSkOroHvA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJZ5v0gG5XNmpR_0U+6EOFHPeVz+EhunLoQ0-sXDCBg8QL3mQw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20180717085039.kqxwbkgruhj5qxtx@suselix>
 <CAJZ5v0ivJiPhuh7Gk3KpujKjvFGAY6EYQrNdu8=kao59xqsgHw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20180717091152.l4ixicbp6imvqtsr@suselix>
 <CAJZ5v0hu6d26Qu1d-NRoO8RXic2ooTEfXzcmJyRGPSOsH6OznA@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Return-path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAJZ5v0hu6d26Qu1d-NRoO8RXic2ooTEfXzcmJyRGPSOsH6OznA@mail.gmail.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>, Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org>, Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>, Linux PM <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>, Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org

On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 11:23:25AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 11:11 AM, Andreas Herrmann <aherrmann@suse.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 11:06:29AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >> On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 10:50 AM, Andreas Herrmann <aherrmann@suse.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> [cut]
> >>
> >> >
> >> > On balance before this commit users could use pcc-cpufreq but had
> >> > already suboptimal performance (compared to say intel_pstate driver
> >> > which can be used changing BIOS options).
> >>
> >> BTW, I wonder why you need to change the BIOS options for intel_pstate to load.
> >
> > I think this is because of (in intel_pstate_init()):
> >
> >         /*
> >          * The Intel pstate driver will be ignored if the platform
> >          * firmware has its own power management modes.
> >          */
> >         if (intel_pstate_platform_pwr_mgmt_exists())
> >                 return -ENODEV;
> >
> 
> OK, because of the "Proliant" entry, right?
> 
> So it looks like we have an issue there.  We find the entry and we
> look for _PSS.  It is not there, so we assume that the firmware is
> expected to control performance, which is not the case.  It looks like
> we also should look for the presence of the PCC interface in there.
> 
> I can provide a patch for that, will you be able to test it?

Yes, I can test it.

> >> It should be initialized before pcc-cpufreq (according to their
> >> respective initcall levels), so in theory intel_pstate should be used
> >> by default on the affected systems anyway.
> >
> >> What BIOS settings need to be changed for that?
> >
> > Already answered in other mail.
> 
> Indeed.


Andreas