From: Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@arm.com>
To: Yu-Che Cheng <giver@chromium.org>
Cc: Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@chromium.org>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
Christian Loehle <christian.loehle@arm.com>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>,
Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
Tomasz Figa <tfiga@chromium.org>,
stable@vger.kernel.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>
Subject: Re: stable 6.6: commit "sched/cpufreq: Rework schedutil governor performance estimation' causes a regression
Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2025 09:35:17 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <7980c3b8-46fa-4c78-b000-60d678854620@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAKchOA31NGBWMdeSjky7MwOjU=dYmHVLbE7uUQHUXSZOzUHUeA@mail.gmail.com>
Hi Yu-Che,
On 11/25/25 13:01, Yu-Che Cheng wrote:
> Hi Lukasz,
>
[snip]
>>
>> There are some differences, though:
>> 1. there are more deeps in the freq in time, so more often you would
>> pay extra penalty for the ramp-up again
>> 2. some of the ramp-up phases are a bit longer ~100ms instead of ~80ms
>> going from 2GHz to 3.6GHz
>
> Agree. From the visualized frequency changes in the Perfetto traces,
> it's more obvious that the ramp-up from 2GHz to 3.6GHz becomes much
> slower and a bit unstable in v6.6.99, and it's also easier to go down
> to a low frequency after a short idle.
>
[snip]
>>
>> I wonder if you had a fix patch for the util_est in your kernel...
>> That fix has been recently backported to 6.6 stable [1].
>>
>> You might want to try that patch as well, w/ or w/o this revert.
>> IMHO it might be worth to have it on top. It might help
>> the main Chrome task ('CrRendererMain') to stay longer on the biggest
>> cpu, since the util_est would be higher. You can read the discussion
>> that I had back then with PeterZ and VincentG [2].
>
> No, the util_est fix isn't in our kernel yet.
> It looks like after cherry-picking the fix, without the revert, the
> Speedometer 2.0 score becomes even slightly higher than that on
> v6.6.88 (450 ~ 460 vs 435 ~ 440).
> On the other hand, with both the fix and the revert, the Speedometer
> score becomes about 475 ~ 480, which is almost the same as using the
> performance governor (i.e. pinning at the maximum frequency).
Sounds really good to get such score.
> It looks like more tasks that originally run on the little cores are
> migrated to the middle and big cores more often, which also makes CPU7
> more likely to stay at a higher frequency during some short idle in
> the main thread.
Yes, that's the desired behavior.
>
> Also attach the Perfetto trace for both of them:
>
> fix without revert:
> https://ui.perfetto.dev/#!/?s=ff4d10bd58982555eada61648786adf6f7187ac3
> fix with revert:
> https://ui.perfetto.dev/#!/?s=05da3cedfb3851ad694f523ef59d3cd1092d74ae
Thanks for the traces, there are idle periods there as well - cool.
I will link your email with the results for the history in that stable
patch backport.
Thanks for sharing those tests' scores. Community works :)
Regards,
Lukasz
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-11-26 9:34 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-11-20 4:45 stable 6.6: commit "sched/cpufreq: Rework schedutil governor performance estimation' causes a regression Sergey Senozhatsky
2025-11-20 10:15 ` Christian Loehle
2025-11-21 3:55 ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2025-11-21 7:02 ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2025-11-21 7:22 ` Vincent Guittot
2025-11-21 13:59 ` Vincent Guittot
2025-11-21 15:53 ` Yu-Che Cheng
[not found] ` <CAKchOA03GKXMUbfVvEXtyp3=-t0mWOzQVHNkB6F9QsMfTzCofA@mail.gmail.com>
2025-11-21 16:35 ` Christian Loehle
2025-11-21 16:42 ` Christian Loehle
2025-11-24 16:30 ` Vincent Guittot
2025-11-24 16:40 ` Vincent Guittot
2025-11-25 12:03 ` Yu-Che Cheng
2025-11-21 17:58 ` Vincent Guittot
2025-11-21 18:25 ` Yu-Che Cheng
2025-11-25 9:46 ` Lukasz Luba
2025-11-25 13:01 ` Yu-Che Cheng
2025-11-26 9:35 ` Lukasz Luba [this message]
2025-11-20 10:55 ` Vincent Guittot
2025-11-21 3:00 ` Sergey Senozhatsky
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=7980c3b8-46fa-4c78-b000-60d678854620@arm.com \
--to=lukasz.luba@arm.com \
--cc=christian.loehle@arm.com \
--cc=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \
--cc=giver@chromium.org \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=rafael@kernel.org \
--cc=senozhatsky@chromium.org \
--cc=stable@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=tfiga@chromium.org \
--cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.org \
--cc=viresh.kumar@linaro.org \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox