On Tue, 2020-03-24 at 12:24 +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 8:02 AM kernel test robot <
> rong.a.chen@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Greeting,
> >
> > FYI, we noticed a -53.4% regression of will-it-
> > scale.per_process_ops due to commit:
> > commit: 06c4d00466eb374841bc84c39af19b3161ff6917 ("[patch 09/22]
> > cpufreq: Convert to new X86 CPU match macros")
> > url:
> > https://github.com/0day-ci/linux/commits/Thomas-Gleixner/x86-devicetable-Move-x86-specific-macro-out-of-generic-code/20200321-031729
> > base:
> > https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/rafael/linux-pm.git
> > linux-next
> >
> > in testcase: will-it-scale
> > on test machine: 4 threads Intel(R) Core(TM) i3-3220 CPU @ 3.30GHz
> > with 8G memory
> > with following parameters:
>
> drivers/cpufreq/speedstep-centrino.c change missed the terminator,
> perhaps it's a culprit, because I don't believe removing dups and
> reordering lines may affect this.
> Can you restore terminator there and re-test?
This is a Ivy Bridge. So if it has to do anything cpufreq then it is
not loading the cpufreq driver (intel_pstate or acpi_cpufreq).
What is
cat /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu0/cpufreq/scaling_governor
>
