On Tuesday, July 19, 2016 08:14:53 PM Doug Smythies wrote: > On 2016.07.19 15:10 Srinivas Pandruvada wrote: > > On Tue, 2016-07-19 at 15:10 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > >> From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wyso...@intel.com> > >> > >> Currently, intel_pstate only updates the cpu_frequency tracepoint > >> if the new P-state to set is different from the current one, but > >> that causes powertop to report 100% idle on an 100% loaded system > >> sometimes. > >> > >> Prevent that from happening by updating the cpu_frequency tracepoint > >> every time intel_pstate_update_pstate() is called. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wyso...@intel.com> > > > > Acked-by: Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruv...@linux.intel.com>- > > Shouldn't this patch refer to: > > commit fdfdb2b1301670a69195ba1e5666df4a7f02eb46 > Author: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wyso...@intel.com> > Date: Fri Mar 18 23:20:02 2016 +0100 > > intel_pstate: Do not call wrmsrl_on_cpu() with disabled interrupts > > which is the patch that introduced the regression?
The logic changed by the $subject patch was there before the above commit, so I don't think the issue at hand really is a regression introduced by it Thanks, Rafael
