On Wed, 14 Feb 2024 at 18:20, Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 14 Feb 2024 at 09:12, Jon Hunter <jonathanh@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > We have also observed a performance degradation on our Tegra platforms
> > with v6.8-rc1. Unfortunately, the above change does not fix the problem
> > for us and we are still seeing a performance issue with v6.8-rc4. For
> > example, running Dhrystone on Tegra234 I am seeing the following ...
> >
> > Linux v6.7:
> > [ 2216.301949] CPU0: Dhrystones per Second: 31976326 (18199 DMIPS)
> > [ 2220.993877] CPU1: Dhrystones per Second: 49568123 (28211 DMIPS)
> > [ 2225.685280] CPU2: Dhrystones per Second: 49568123 (28211 DMIPS)
> > [ 2230.364423] CPU3: Dhrystones per Second: 49632220 (28248 DMIPS)
> >
> > Linux v6.8-rc4:
> > [ 44.661686] CPU0: Dhrystones per Second: 16068483 (9145 DMIPS)
> > [ 51.895107] CPU1: Dhrystones per Second: 16077457 (9150 DMIPS)
> > [ 59.105410] CPU2: Dhrystones per Second: 16095436 (9160 DMIPS)
> > [ 66.333297] CPU3: Dhrystones per Second: 16064000 (9142 DMIPS)
> >
> > If I revert this change and the following ...
> >
> > b3edde44e5d4 ("cpufreq/schedutil: Use a fixed reference frequency")
> > f12560779f9d ("sched/cpufreq: Rework iowait boost")
> > 9c0b4bb7f630 ("sched/cpufreq: Rework schedutil governor
> >
> > ... then the perf is similar to where it was ...
>
> Ok, guys, this whole scheduler / cpufreq rewrite seems to have been
> completely buggered.
>
> Please tell me why we shouldn't just revert things as per above?
>
> Sure, the problem _I_ experienced is fixed, but apparently there are
> others just lurking, and they are even bigger degradations than the
> one I saw.
>
> We're now at rc4, we're not releasing a 6.8 with the above kinds of
> numbers. So either there's another obvious one-liner fix, or we need
> to revert this whole thing.
This should fix it:
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20240117190545.596057-1-vincent.guittot@xxxxxxxxxx/
>
> Yes, dhrystones is a truly crappy benchmark, but partly _because_ it's
> such a horribly bad benchmark it's also a very simple case. It's pure
> CPU load with absolutely nothing interesting going on. Regressing on
> that by a factor of three is a sign of complete failure.
>
> Linus
