From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Srivatsa S. Bhat" Subject: Re: 3.10-rcX: cpu governor ondemand doesn't scale well after s2ram Date: Thu, 04 Jul 2013 12:38:19 +0530 Message-ID: <51D51F63.8080905@linux.vnet.ibm.com> References: <51C08370.4050906@gmx.de> <51CF1E53.6060902@gmx.de> <8029836.CFiJCXmRQ0@vostro.rjw.lan> <51D05DF4.50704@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <51D06556.7080204@gmx.de> <51D47FB0.5090604@gmx.de> <51D51C63.2080702@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: cpufreq-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Viresh Kumar Cc: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Toralf_F=F6rster?= , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , cpufreq@vger.kernel.org, Linux PM list List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org On 07/04/2013 12:31 PM, Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 4 July 2013 12:25, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote: >> On 07/04/2013 01:16 AM, Toralf F=F6rster wrote: >>> On 06/30/2013 07:05 PM, Toralf F=F6rster wrote: >>>> On 06/30/2013 06:33 PM, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote: >>>>> Toralf, can you please >>>>> try out the below patch and see if it improves anything? (Don't r= evert anything, >>>>> just apply the below diff on a problematic kernel and see if it s= olves your >>>>> issue). >>>> >>>> applied on top of a66b2e5 - issue went away (either fixed or hidde= n now) >>>> >>>> Thx >>>> >>> But if I do apply that patch on top of kernel 3.10 then it has no e= ffect >>> - 3.10 shows the same issue. >>> >> >> Weird. So I think something *else* got broken by some other patch, _= after_ >> a66b2e5. Viresh, do you have any suspect commits in mind? >=20 > If I was God I could have. But as I am a poor human being I > need more details (preferably with git bisect) :) >=20 Haha :) Coming to git bisect, I think it needs to be done between a66b2e5 + thi= s-patch and 3.10 + this-patch, to ensure that we look for problematic commits i= n-between a66b2e5 and 3.10 (to avoid the bisect result ending up at a66b2e5 again= ). Regards, Srivatsa S. Bhat