question about one acpi-cpufreq commit

question about one acpi-cpufreq commit

[Guoqing Jiang]

Hi,

I just found the commit in 5.10 stable kernel.

stable-linux> git tag --sort=taggerdate --contain 
8a3fc32b322cc3081dd3569047c9834f496b4ab0 | head -1
v5.10.17

commit 8a3fc32b322cc3081dd3569047c9834f496b4ab0
Author: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
Date:   Thu Feb 4 18:25:37 2021 +0100

     cpufreq: ACPI: Extend frequency tables to cover boost frequencies

     commit 3c55e94c0adea4a5389c4b80f6ae9927dd6a4501 upstream.

    [ ... ]

     Fixes: 41ea667227ba ("x86, sched: Calculate frequency invariance 
for AMD systems")
     Fixes: 976df7e5730e ("x86, sched: Use midpoint of max_boost and 
max_P for frequency invariance on AMD EPYC")
     Fixes: db865272d9c4 ("cpufreq: Avoid configuring old governors as 
default with intel_pstate")

Except db865272d9c4 was applied in v5.10-rc2, the others (41ea667227ba 
and 976df7e5730e)
were first appeared in v5.11-rc1.

linux> git tag --sort=taggerdate --contain 41ea667227ba | head -1
v5.11-rc1
linux> git tag --sort=taggerdate --contain 976df7e5730e | head -1
v5.11-rc1
linux> git tag --sort=taggerdate --contain db865272d9c4 | head -1
v5.10-rc2

So I am wondering if the mentioned commit is suitable for 5.10 stable 
kernel, or what am I missing?

Thanks,
Guoqing

Re: question about one acpi-cpufreq commit

[Greg KH]

On Wed, Mar 16, 2022 at 04:56:11PM +0800, Guoqing Jiang wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I just found the commit in 5.10 stable kernel.
> 
> stable-linux> git tag --sort=taggerdate --contain
> 8a3fc32b322cc3081dd3569047c9834f496b4ab0 | head -1
> v5.10.17
> 
> commit 8a3fc32b322cc3081dd3569047c9834f496b4ab0
> Author: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
> Date:   Thu Feb 4 18:25:37 2021 +0100
> 
>     cpufreq: ACPI: Extend frequency tables to cover boost frequencies
> 
>     commit 3c55e94c0adea4a5389c4b80f6ae9927dd6a4501 upstream.
> 
>    [ ... ]
> 
>     Fixes: 41ea667227ba ("x86, sched: Calculate frequency invariance for AMD
> systems")
>     Fixes: 976df7e5730e ("x86, sched: Use midpoint of max_boost and max_P
> for frequency invariance on AMD EPYC")
>     Fixes: db865272d9c4 ("cpufreq: Avoid configuring old governors as
> default with intel_pstate")
> 
> Except db865272d9c4 was applied in v5.10-rc2, the others (41ea667227ba and
> 976df7e5730e)
> were first appeared in v5.11-rc1.
> 
> linux> git tag --sort=taggerdate --contain 41ea667227ba | head -1
> v5.11-rc1
> linux> git tag --sort=taggerdate --contain 976df7e5730e | head -1
> v5.11-rc1
> linux> git tag --sort=taggerdate --contain db865272d9c4 | head -1
> v5.10-rc2
> 
> So I am wondering if the mentioned commit is suitable for 5.10 stable
> kernel, or what am I missing?

Is it causing a problem for you?  What is the issue with having it in
the 5.10.y tree?

thanks,

greg k-h

Re: question about one acpi-cpufreq commit

[Guoqing Jiang]

On 3/16/22 7:02 PM, Greg KH wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 16, 2022 at 04:56:11PM +0800, Guoqing Jiang wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I just found the commit in 5.10 stable kernel.
>>
>> stable-linux> git tag --sort=taggerdate --contain
>> 8a3fc32b322cc3081dd3569047c9834f496b4ab0 | head -1
>> v5.10.17
>>
>> commit 8a3fc32b322cc3081dd3569047c9834f496b4ab0
>> Author: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
>> Date:   Thu Feb 4 18:25:37 2021 +0100
>>
>>      cpufreq: ACPI: Extend frequency tables to cover boost frequencies
>>
>>      commit 3c55e94c0adea4a5389c4b80f6ae9927dd6a4501 upstream.
>>
>>     [ ... ]
>>
>>      Fixes: 41ea667227ba ("x86, sched: Calculate frequency invariance for AMD
>> systems")
>>      Fixes: 976df7e5730e ("x86, sched: Use midpoint of max_boost and max_P
>> for frequency invariance on AMD EPYC")
>>      Fixes: db865272d9c4 ("cpufreq: Avoid configuring old governors as
>> default with intel_pstate")
>>
>> Except db865272d9c4 was applied in v5.10-rc2, the others (41ea667227ba and
>> 976df7e5730e)
>> were first appeared in v5.11-rc1.
>>
>> linux> git tag --sort=taggerdate --contain 41ea667227ba | head -1
>> v5.11-rc1
>> linux> git tag --sort=taggerdate --contain 976df7e5730e | head -1
>> v5.11-rc1
>> linux> git tag --sort=taggerdate --contain db865272d9c4 | head -1
>> v5.10-rc2
>>
>> So I am wondering if the mentioned commit is suitable for 5.10 stable
>> kernel, or what am I missing?
> Is it causing a problem for you?  What is the issue with having it in
> the 5.10.y tree?

No.

I am trying to port 41ea667227ba and relevant commits to our kernel which
is based on 5.10 stable kernel, and I am being asked to port 3c55e94c0ade
per the fix tag after 41ea667227ba was added, then I was confused because
of conflict.

Thanks,
Guoqing

Re: question about one acpi-cpufreq commit

[Greg KH]

On Wed, Mar 16, 2022 at 08:42:56PM +0800, Guoqing Jiang wrote:
> 
> 
> On 3/16/22 7:02 PM, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 16, 2022 at 04:56:11PM +0800, Guoqing Jiang wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > > 
> > > I just found the commit in 5.10 stable kernel.
> > > 
> > > stable-linux> git tag --sort=taggerdate --contain
> > > 8a3fc32b322cc3081dd3569047c9834f496b4ab0 | head -1
> > > v5.10.17
> > > 
> > > commit 8a3fc32b322cc3081dd3569047c9834f496b4ab0
> > > Author: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
> > > Date:   Thu Feb 4 18:25:37 2021 +0100
> > > 
> > >      cpufreq: ACPI: Extend frequency tables to cover boost frequencies
> > > 
> > >      commit 3c55e94c0adea4a5389c4b80f6ae9927dd6a4501 upstream.
> > > 
> > >     [ ... ]
> > > 
> > >      Fixes: 41ea667227ba ("x86, sched: Calculate frequency invariance for AMD
> > > systems")
> > >      Fixes: 976df7e5730e ("x86, sched: Use midpoint of max_boost and max_P
> > > for frequency invariance on AMD EPYC")
> > >      Fixes: db865272d9c4 ("cpufreq: Avoid configuring old governors as
> > > default with intel_pstate")
> > > 
> > > Except db865272d9c4 was applied in v5.10-rc2, the others (41ea667227ba and
> > > 976df7e5730e)
> > > were first appeared in v5.11-rc1.
> > > 
> > > linux> git tag --sort=taggerdate --contain 41ea667227ba | head -1
> > > v5.11-rc1
> > > linux> git tag --sort=taggerdate --contain 976df7e5730e | head -1
> > > v5.11-rc1
> > > linux> git tag --sort=taggerdate --contain db865272d9c4 | head -1
> > > v5.10-rc2
> > > 
> > > So I am wondering if the mentioned commit is suitable for 5.10 stable
> > > kernel, or what am I missing?
> > Is it causing a problem for you?  What is the issue with having it in
> > the 5.10.y tree?
> 
> No.
> 
> I am trying to port 41ea667227ba and relevant commits to our kernel which
> is based on 5.10 stable kernel, and I am being asked to port 3c55e94c0ade
> per the fix tag after 41ea667227ba was added, then I was confused because
> of conflict.

Don't "port" stable kernels, just do a normal merge and then all is much
better.  That way you do not miss patches you should have applied but
didn't realize until much later...

good luck!

greg k-h

Re: question about one acpi-cpufreq commit

[Guoqing Jiang]

On 3/16/22 8:53 PM, Greg KH wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 16, 2022 at 08:42:56PM +0800, Guoqing Jiang wrote:
>>
>> On 3/16/22 7:02 PM, Greg KH wrote:
>>> On Wed, Mar 16, 2022 at 04:56:11PM +0800, Guoqing Jiang wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> I just found the commit in 5.10 stable kernel.
>>>>
>>>> stable-linux> git tag --sort=taggerdate --contain
>>>> 8a3fc32b322cc3081dd3569047c9834f496b4ab0 | head -1
>>>> v5.10.17
>>>>
>>>> commit 8a3fc32b322cc3081dd3569047c9834f496b4ab0
>>>> Author: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
>>>> Date:   Thu Feb 4 18:25:37 2021 +0100
>>>>
>>>>       cpufreq: ACPI: Extend frequency tables to cover boost frequencies
>>>>
>>>>       commit 3c55e94c0adea4a5389c4b80f6ae9927dd6a4501 upstream.
>>>>
>>>>      [ ... ]
>>>>
>>>>       Fixes: 41ea667227ba ("x86, sched: Calculate frequency invariance for AMD
>>>> systems")
>>>>       Fixes: 976df7e5730e ("x86, sched: Use midpoint of max_boost and max_P
>>>> for frequency invariance on AMD EPYC")
>>>>       Fixes: db865272d9c4 ("cpufreq: Avoid configuring old governors as
>>>> default with intel_pstate")
>>>>
>>>> Except db865272d9c4 was applied in v5.10-rc2, the others (41ea667227ba and
>>>> 976df7e5730e)
>>>> were first appeared in v5.11-rc1.
>>>>
>>>> linux> git tag --sort=taggerdate --contain 41ea667227ba | head -1
>>>> v5.11-rc1
>>>> linux> git tag --sort=taggerdate --contain 976df7e5730e | head -1
>>>> v5.11-rc1
>>>> linux> git tag --sort=taggerdate --contain db865272d9c4 | head -1
>>>> v5.10-rc2
>>>>
>>>> So I am wondering if the mentioned commit is suitable for 5.10 stable
>>>> kernel, or what am I missing?
>>> Is it causing a problem for you?  What is the issue with having it in
>>> the 5.10.y tree?
>> No.
>>
>> I am trying to port 41ea667227ba and relevant commits to our kernel which
>> is based on 5.10 stable kernel, and I am being asked to port 3c55e94c0ade
>> per the fix tag after 41ea667227ba was added, then I was confused because
>> of conflict.
> Don't "port" stable kernels, just do a normal merge and then all is much
> better.  That way you do not miss patches you should have applied but
> didn't realize until much later...

Thanks for the tip and also the effort for stable kernel maintenance!

Thanks,
Guoqing