Re: cpufreq/thermal regression in 6.10

[Steev Klimaszewski <steev@kali.org>]

On 6/11/24 7:02 AM, Johan Hovold wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 11, 2024 at 12:54:25PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 10, 2024 at 1:17 PM Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@kernel.org> wrote:
>>> On Sun, Jun 9, 2024 at 9:53 AM Johan Hovold <johan@kernel.org> wrote:
>>>> Steev reported to me off-list that the CPU frequency of the big cores on
>>>> the Lenovo ThinkPad X13s sometimes appears to get stuck at a low
>>>> frequency with 6.10-rc2.
>>>>
>>>> I just confirmed that once the cores are fully throttled (using the
>>>> stepwise thermal governor) due to the skin temperature reaching the
>>>> first trip point, scaling_max_freq gets stuck at the next OPP:
>>>>
>>>>          cpu4/cpufreq/scaling_max_freq:940800
>>>>          cpu5/cpufreq/scaling_max_freq:940800
>>>>          cpu6/cpufreq/scaling_max_freq:940800
>>>>          cpu7/cpufreq/scaling_max_freq:940800
>>>>
>>>> when the temperature drops again.
>> If this is the step-wise governor, the problem might have been
>> introduced by commit
>>
>> 042a3d80f118 thermal: core: Move passive polling management to the core
>>
>> which removed passive polling count updates from that governor, so if
>> the thermal zone in question has passive polling only and no regular
>> polling, temperature updates may stop coming before the governor drops
>> the cooling device states to the "no target" level.
>>
>> So please test the attached partial revert of the above commit when you can.
> Thanks for the quick fix. The partial revert seems to do the trick:
>
> Tested-by: Johan Hovold <johan+linaro@kernel.org>
>
> Johan

I can also confirm that it's working here!

Tested-by: Steev Klimaszewski <steev@kali.org>