From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.1 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS, USER_AGENT_NEOMUTT autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 80412C282D4 for ; Wed, 30 Jan 2019 05:27:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 423BB20881 for ; Wed, 30 Jan 2019 05:27:58 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=linaro.org header.i=@linaro.org header.b="DlP5kjTU" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726446AbfA3F14 (ORCPT ); Wed, 30 Jan 2019 00:27:56 -0500 Received: from mail-pl1-f193.google.com ([209.85.214.193]:34136 "EHLO mail-pl1-f193.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725791AbfA3F14 (ORCPT ); Wed, 30 Jan 2019 00:27:56 -0500 Received: by mail-pl1-f193.google.com with SMTP id w4so10551473plz.1 for ; Tue, 29 Jan 2019 21:27:56 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linaro.org; s=google; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=Z7Tb2eMDUcedcm8UHdt5wKVRrqj7a3CTmiIevFZzDaI=; b=DlP5kjTUU8/0AM2zwKtHHnlvguViPwWOuy39NnanzgMuF+eiJu8p13/q388zMiFOmx O/MjYBl7dh+rfoyjtksEA1V2LBOLxpgwCfBBaDzs6ZbJdV0nmze2o7RYrRbrVauq8pOw 3f2Y5zlEEWo5+XB2ArCUAWAmaP8Jx497QLAV0= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=Z7Tb2eMDUcedcm8UHdt5wKVRrqj7a3CTmiIevFZzDaI=; b=AhmKYQtcLcDV3js73vFTmQxtRt0VAR1n8CFvBpuN5PR9vdCf8VFE11dIAU50Ha0LJG MDTAtrAo7cmfacPFnnTA+MYCkoukQZRhKDy8/5RRzj+tkbselHMKWHJafkw2DJ6c6oxQ uFq9/5ZJvXeLeUfZH0xDP0VWEwXtW/E+YBKwuGuRq8zdLI/bg4/Ksn5aLdwlpmfYLfZN mW7hDsGRJEQNJE6VlQQ/ClRKe1vgn+SCEije7HgZY7jyw/NrDC6B6f1lMV5ipxX7LsI8 pf/lGQNHqgWN76xTt4/PX30on5JdxGKkizSeDjEGdACH41WU7VF3Ip/pmvAwA2vxFkG5 VgRg== X-Gm-Message-State: AJcUukficO+grP4CpF2GN+VRKgHDUhmg+4ZPvNsmTxCgmG/u6nhS4Wie RHKHL4itDS+vFfycSLrZC5OvHA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ALg8bN7j+KJxxXT3zNAPsMgKYkgAlZMtWKTeiyxiRG0ZSHCWphQBb8cBBXTdGElk13EgPpXnpXkZ+g== X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:680f:: with SMTP id h15mr28538881plk.40.1548826075731; Tue, 29 Jan 2019 21:27:55 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost ([122.172.102.63]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 24sm1857730pfl.32.2019.01.29.21.27.54 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 29 Jan 2019 21:27:54 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2019 10:57:52 +0530 From: Viresh Kumar To: "CAJZ5v0gtjq9Nh0WHbMzY+3Z3o5NWiWhP=QEXxzjVe3ta32z7=Q@mail.gmail.com" Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Juri Lelli , Rafael Wysocki , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Viresh Kumar , Linux PM , Vincent Guittot , Matthias Kaehlcke , Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] drivers: Frequency constraint infrastructure Message-ID: <20190130052752.v2zujifnkm3o7krf@vireshk-i7> References: <20190117131631.GA14385@localhost.localdomain> <20190118123900.GJ14385@localhost.localdomain> <20190128140441.yetyx7hgtdoyk4mn@e107158-lin.cambridge.arm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20190128140441.yetyx7hgtdoyk4mn@e107158-lin.cambridge.arm.com> User-Agent: NeoMutt/20180323-120-3dd1ac Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 28-01-19, 14:04, Qais Yousef wrote: > But we have no way to enforce this, no? I'm thinking if frequency can be > constrained in PM QoS framework, then we will end up with some drivers that > think it's a good idea to use it and potentially end up breaking this "should > not work against schedutil and similar". > > Or did I miss something? > > My point is that if we introduce something too generic we might end up > encouraging more users and end up with a complex set of rules/interactions and > lose some determinism. But I could be reading too much into it :-) People are free to use notifiers today as well and there is nobody stopping them. A new framework/layer may actually make them more accountable as we can easily record which all entities have requested to impose a freq-limit on CPUs. -- viresh