Re: [PATCH v1] Revert "cpufreq: schedutil: Move max CPU capacity to sugov_policy" #forregzbot

[Thorsten Leemhuis]

[Note: this mail is primarily send for documentation purposes and/or for
regzbot, my Linux kernel regression tracking bot. That's why I removed
most or all folks from the list of recipients, but left any that looked
like a mailing lists. These mails usually contain '#forregzbot' in the
subject, to make them easy to spot and filter out.]

[TLDR: I'm adding this regression report to the list of tracked
regressions; all text from me you find below is based on a few templates
paragraphs you might have encountered already already in similar form.]

Hi, this is your Linux kernel regression tracker.

On 10.11.22 20:57, Sam Wu wrote:
> This reverts commit 6d5afdc97ea71958287364a1f1d07e59ef151b11.
> 
> On a Pixel 6 device, it is observed that this commit increases
> latency by approximately 50ms, or 20%, in migrating a task
> that requires full CPU utilization from a LITTLE CPU to Fmax
> on a big CPU. Reverting this change restores the latency back
> to its original baseline value.
> 
> Fixes: 6d5afdc97ea7 ("cpufreq: schedutil: Move max CPU capacity to sugov_policy")
> Cc: Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@xxxxxxx>
> Cc: Saravana Kannan <saravanak@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Isaac J. Manjarres <isaacmanjarres@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Sam Wu <wusamuel@xxxxxxxxxx>

Thanks for the report. To be sure below issue doesn't fall through the
cracks unnoticed, I'm adding it to regzbot, my Linux kernel regression
tracking bot:

#regzbot ^introduced 6d5afdc97ea7
#regzbot title cpufreq: schedutil: improved latency on Pixel 6
#regzbot ignore-activity

This isn't a regression? This issue or a fix for it are already
discussed somewhere else? It was fixed already? You want to clarify when
the regression started to happen? Or point out I got the title or
something else totally wrong? Then just reply -- ideally with also
telling regzbot about it, as explained here:
https://linux-regtracking.leemhuis.info/tracked-regression/

Reminder for developers: When fixing the issue, add 'Link:' tags
pointing to the report (the mail this one replies to), as explained for
in the Linux kernel's documentation; above webpage explains why this is
important for tracked regressions.

Ciao, Thorsten (wearing his 'the Linux kernel's regression tracker' hat)

P.S.: As the Linux kernel's regression tracker I deal with a lot of
reports and sometimes miss something important when writing mails like
this. If that's the case here, don't hesitate to tell me in a public
reply, it's in everyone's interest to set the public record straight.