On 3/24/20 11:38 PM, Srinivas Pandruvada wrote:
> On Tue, 2020-03-24 at 12:24 +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 8:02 AM kernel test robot <
>> rong.a.chen@intel.com> wrote:
>>> Greeting,
>>>
>>> FYI, we noticed a -53.4% regression of will-it-
>>> scale.per_process_ops due to commit:
>>> commit: 06c4d00466eb374841bc84c39af19b3161ff6917 ("[patch 09/22]
>>> cpufreq: Convert to new X86 CPU match macros")
>>> url:
>>> https://github.com/0day-ci/linux/commits/Thomas-Gleixner/x86-devicetable-Move-x86-specific-macro-out-of-generic-code/20200321-031729
>>> base:
>>> https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/rafael/linux-pm.git
>>> linux-next
>>>
>>> in testcase: will-it-scale
>>> on test machine: 4 threads Intel(R) Core(TM) i3-3220 CPU @ 3.30GHz
>>> with 8G memory
>>> with following parameters:
>> drivers/cpufreq/speedstep-centrino.c change missed the terminator,
>> perhaps it's a culprit, because I don't believe removing dups and
>> reordering lines may affect this.
>> Can you restore terminator there and re-test?
> This is a Ivy Bridge. So if it has to do anything cpufreq then it is
> not loading the cpufreq driver (intel_pstate or acpi_cpufreq).
> What is
>   cat /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu0/cpufreq/scaling_governor
>

# cat /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu0/cpufreq/scaling_governor
performance