* Elliot Berman <quic_eberman@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi Peter,
>
> On 9/26/2023 1:02 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 26, 2023 at 04:17:33PM +0000, Carlos Llamas wrote:
> >> On Fri, Sep 08, 2023 at 03:49:14PM -0700, Elliot Berman wrote:
> >>> After commit f5d39b020809 ("freezer,sched: Rewrite core freezer logic"),
> >>> tasks that transition directly from TASK_FREEZABLE to TASK_FROZEN are
> >>> always woken up on the thaw path. Prior to that commit, tasks could ask
> >>> freezer to consider them "frozen enough" via freezer_do_not_count(). The
> >>> commit replaced freezer_do_not_count() with a TASK_FREEZABLE state which
> >>> allows freezer to immediately mark the task as TASK_FROZEN without
> >>> waking up the task. This is efficient for the suspend path, but on the
> >>> thaw path, the task is always woken up even if the task didn't need to
> >>> wake up and goes back to its TASK_(UN)INTERRUPTIBLE state. Although
> >>> these tasks are capable of handling of the wakeup, we can observe a
> >>> power/perf impact from the extra wakeup.
> >>
> >> This issue is hurting the performance of our stable 6.1 releases. Does
> >> it make sense to backport these patches into stable branches once they
> >> land in mainline? I would assume we want to fix the perf regression
> >> there too?
> >
> > Note that these patches are in tip/sched/core, slated for the next merge
> > window.
>
> Can the changes be scheduled for the next 6.6-rc? I'd like to get the
> changes backported to stable sooner since we observed the regression on
> real systems.
These are pretty risky and go beyond fixes for regressions introduced
recently: the original commit is more than a year old.
But I agree with having the fixes in stable once it hits upstream in the v6.7
merge window - the difference would only be a couple of days vs. -final.
Thanks,
Ingo
