On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 4:32 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki <r...@rjwysocki.net> wrote: > On Thursday, October 20, 2016 04:20:44 PM Sedat Dilek wrote: >> On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 1:15 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki <r...@rjwysocki.net> >> wrote: >> > On Thursday, October 20, 2016 09:41:34 AM Sedat Dilek wrote: >> >> On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 10:55 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki <r...@rjwysocki.net> >> >> wrote: >> >> > On Wednesday, October 19, 2016 06:59:35 PM Jörg Otte wrote: >> >> >> 2016-10-19 17:29 GMT+02:00 Linus Torvalds >> >> >> <torva...@linux-foundation.org>: >> >> >> > On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 4:07 AM, Jörg Otte <jrg.o...@gmail.com> >> >> >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Additional info: I usally use schedutil governor. >> >> >> >> If I switch to performance governor problems go away. >> >> >> >> Maybe a cpufreq problem? >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Oh, I completely misread the original bug report, and then didn't >> >> >> > read >> >> >> > your confirmation email right. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > I thought you had a slower build of the different kernels (when >> >> >> > building on the same kernel), and that the _build_ itself had slowed >> >> >> > down for some reason. But you're actually saying that doing the >> >> >> > _same_ >> >> >> > build actually takes longer when running on 4.9-rc1. >> >> >> >> >> >> Exactly! >> >> >> >> >> >> Btw: ondemand governor is also good. >> >> >> >> >> >> > There are a few small cpufreq changes there in between commit >> >> >> > 29fbff8698fc (that you reported was fine - please tell me I got >> >> >> > _that_ >> >> >> > right, at least?) and 4.9-rc1. >> >> >> >> >> >> Perfect! That's what I mean. >> >> >> >> >> >> > Adding Rafael to the cc. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > That said, none of them look all that likely to me. It *would* be >> >> >> > good >> >> >> > if you could bisect it a bit (perhaps not fully, but a couple of >> >> >> > bisection steps to narrow down what area it is). >> >> >> >> >> >> I try that tomorrow. >> >> > >> >> > Well, please try commit ef98988ba369 (Merge tag 'pm-extra-4.9-rc1' of >> >> > git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/rafael/linux-pm) which is >> >> > the >> >> > merge introducing the late cpufreq changes. If the issue is there, >> >> > please >> >> > try to revert commit 899bb6642f2a (cpufreq: skip invalid entries when >> >> > searching >> >> > the frequency) which is the only cpufreq one that may matter for the >> >> > schedutil >> >> > governor (and I have one fix for that commit queued up already). >> >> > >> >> >> >> Is "cpufreq: fix overflow in cpufreq_table_find_index_dl()" the fix >> >> you are speaking of? >> >> >> >> Fixes: 899bb6642f2a (cpufreq: skip invalid entries when searching the >> >> frequency) >> > >> > Yes. >> > >> >> If yes, can you add a hint in the commit message describing the impact >> >> like here a slow-down of building a linux-kernel. >> >> With a reference to this ML-thread? >> > >> > I will if that turns out to be the case. >> > >> >> I have tried the revert and the patch from Sergey Senozhatsk pending >> in linux-pm.git#linux-next. >> Both fixes the issue for me. > > OK, thanks for the confirmation! > >> Feel free to give appropriate credits and many thanks to Jörg. >> >> I tried 'make -j3' in my last build and it was approx. 5mins faster in >> my customized setup. >> Will switch back to 2 parallel-make-jobs - it's safer for me. >> >> Can you explain why this issue was not seen when building under Linux v4.8.x? >> [1] says... >> Cc: 4.8+ <sta...@vger.kernel.org> # 4.8+ > > The commit in question might not make it into 4.8.y yet. >
It's a bit terrifying to see these impacts of schedutil cpufreq-governor. Do you have a test-case or how do you test with / for schedutil? - sed@ -
