From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.9 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, MENTIONS_GIT_HOSTING,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF6F9C35666 for ; Fri, 21 Feb 2020 22:11:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C7366207FD for ; Fri, 21 Feb 2020 22:11:01 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=riseup.net header.i=@riseup.net header.b="NKbG4bYO" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1728723AbgBUWK7 (ORCPT ); Fri, 21 Feb 2020 17:10:59 -0500 Received: from mx1.riseup.net ([198.252.153.129]:45096 "EHLO mx1.riseup.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726725AbgBUWK6 (ORCPT ); Fri, 21 Feb 2020 17:10:58 -0500 Received: from capuchin.riseup.net (capuchin-pn.riseup.net [10.0.1.176]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "*.riseup.net", Issuer "Sectigo RSA Domain Validation Secure Server CA" (not verified)) by mx1.riseup.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 48PQdY5BjczFbgR; Fri, 21 Feb 2020 14:10:57 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=riseup.net; s=squak; t=1582323057; bh=xDOULZRpbeY7KpvwA2rDOTseM/Ct7CH+yfVqbVPQOHw=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=NKbG4bYO6gvtg2/bKnLk14xCYOMnhVr53RVGZaHsJRKqOMLZYPIJHRemEdQBpTEC0 YOffv3QOfRBikqTDT1mzdN90/tOwANwm8zeAYggJCnV4yrebrZf61fLzv5ph30uc11 EDyn92fFGa9PAAdGClcARYwpQgaQ6FREOZAenCBY= X-Riseup-User-ID: 40F904F66C7E578679E7FE1A4FD79D280A24236C0758237B6635A1E2D09F48C0 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by capuchin.riseup.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 48PQdY15XFz8v7L; Fri, 21 Feb 2020 14:10:57 -0800 (PST) From: Francisco Jerez To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Linux PM , LKML , Amit Kucheria , "Pandruvada\, Srinivas" , Rodrigo Vivi , Peter Zijlstra Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/28] PM: QoS: Get rid of unuseful code and rework CPU latency QoS interface In-Reply-To: References: <1654227.8mz0SueHsU@kreacher> <87wo8rjsa4.fsf@riseup.net> <877e0qj4bm.fsf@riseup.net> Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2020 14:10:54 -0800 Message-ID: <87ftf3fv69.fsf@riseup.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="==-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org --==-=-= Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=-=-=" --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline "Rafael J. Wysocki" writes: > On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 9:09 AM Francisco Jerez wrote: >> >> "Rafael J. Wysocki" writes: >> >> > On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 1:16 AM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >> >> >> >> On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 12:31 AM Francisco Jerez wrote: >> >> > > > [cut] > >> > >> > And BTW, posting patches as RFC is fine even if they have not been >> > tested. At least you let people know that you work on something this >> > way, so if they work on changes in the same area, they may take that >> > into consideration. >> > >> >> Sure, that was going to be the first RFC. >> >> > Also if there are objections to your proposal, you may save quite a >> > bit of time by sending it early. >> > >> > It is unfortunate that this series has clashed with the changes that >> > you were about to propose, but in this particular case in my view it >> > is better to clean up things and start over. >> > >> >> Luckily it doesn't clash with the second RFC I was meaning to send, >> maybe we should just skip the first? > > Yes, please. > >> Or maybe it's valuable as a curiosity anyway? > > No, let's just focus on the latest one. > > Thanks! We don't seem to have reached much of an agreement on the general direction of RFC2, so I can't really get started with it. Here is RFC1 for the record: https://github.com/curro/linux/commits/intel_pstate-lp-hwp-v10.8-alt Specifically the following patch conflicts with this series: https://github.com/curro/linux/commit/9a16f35531bbb76d38493da892ece088e31dc2e0 Series improves performance-per-watt of GfxBench gl_4 (AKA Car Chase) by over 15% on my system with the branch above, actual FPS "only" improves about 5.9% on ICL laptop due to it being very lightly TDP-bound with its rather huge TDP. The performance of almost every graphics benchmark I've tried improves significantly with it (a number of SynMark test-cases are improved by around 40% in perf-per-watt, Egypt perf-per-watt improves by about 25%). Hopefully we can come up with some alternative plan of action. --=-=-=-- --==-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iHUEAREIAB0WIQST8OekYz69PM20/4aDmTidfVK/WwUCXlBVbgAKCRCDmTidfVK/ W/gtAP0dDbIUxAKRzrls42EXSlpM90oykm1O5NuaXw5FQsrp6wD7BqAQtSgtC7kt xSSD+vYRPoTK1cLrAHb6gTD2l3BeQRQ= =U3Wm -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --==-=-=--