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=-2.4 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no 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 2F21ECA9EA3 for ; Fri, 18 Oct 2019 09:24:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 08AE421897 for ; Fri, 18 Oct 2019 09:24:56 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=linaro.org header.i=@linaro.org header.b="W4GJ3Yys" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S2409690AbfJRJYz (ORCPT ); Fri, 18 Oct 2019 05:24:55 -0400 Received: from mail-pf1-f193.google.com ([209.85.210.193]:33354 "EHLO mail-pf1-f193.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S2394889AbfJRJYx (ORCPT ); Fri, 18 Oct 2019 05:24:53 -0400 Received: by mail-pf1-f193.google.com with SMTP id q10so3524025pfl.0 for ; Fri, 18 Oct 2019 02:24:52 -0700 (PDT) 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=v3de0Qp2dEG4v6wLtc+9wSifLlx04TUsULf8ZNOAzfo=; b=W4GJ3YysV76ngGFa9Q/MKPTCmrRuklBK8Sig/JFoWCS/GdY4XsthMBFYsf2fazxszF 078CVXdccd/fbVCPk6zvLKGm0yKvZ5GJmZz0mqTHOX6UvQNT0PNPCvJIawWtuTYFp/qB RulOH4AyHToa+0aEtHN3ZzMK3uOaV4aZ34akTt1ZDPXQyurQkSgngCFi5+24L0SG8fCF XFMX5fmEw56bqXBuDxlojv1muVzT6HR6by4OV/kDQc9Lo5kbqE3j/+6mlQjSH7Lpw4Ru 4bZzBUNT3sTopm4+O75Q2Q8kZi6x630VLZLbdGcb+G5JQELAfOL8aiV1qXHBGrKh/HZA Yyew== 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=v3de0Qp2dEG4v6wLtc+9wSifLlx04TUsULf8ZNOAzfo=; b=Rq3OihioGNYpsydk7Of8dGB9gcwXL89ElOysU28lgLEIvfIUYg7Oc0PNL730G29nM0 XBtOE0hpCnsXxl2Mnsdg1ZmEJiCqeRU3JRGB6HUNdhdBea8vzLIvgTBN5+2aruyTQqiN Lric9MpcUGiTvF1FpQTuWD9/g+autlUWCQBjC/4HDfFbNPrJEuUg7WOsNCPB3CbB/TrR 3JPeLSlbENoTTt9ynvS7J9dge4p84qkdM59oFbxfhs+TgCr6Bo9J5Yaft3ixRROyemO0 Luwmgxbn/rJB3/crc8ks1j0eHZwmX/WN4zooyRsRYV7IMi5o1CscdZX4Nf4hh8FqEPbn IYPA== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAUXzokVlyfmkWqEcsbecP46vrOZhvzPnsFkNgO98UHzbscIOEx5 kL4lZfeOcFj0fw2DvE7SLTF7eQ== X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwkH7aDyKc+7ed+bwZ6rBwWDlzPlXO9W/aj0PKz4MD3W9HH+2tq3+dXWpID2Rv3H10HgXzj3A== X-Received: by 2002:a17:90a:9306:: with SMTP id p6mr9751961pjo.68.1571390692245; Fri, 18 Oct 2019 02:24:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([122.172.151.112]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id f13sm5441333pgr.6.2019.10.18.02.24.50 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 18 Oct 2019 02:24:50 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2019 14:54:47 +0530 From: Viresh Kumar To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Cc: Sudeep Holla , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Linux PM , Linux ACPI , LKML , Dmitry Osipenko Subject: Re: [RFT][PATCH 0/3] cpufreq / PM: QoS: Introduce frequency QoS and use it in cpufreq Message-ID: <20191018092447.2utqazqfob65x4k2@vireshk-i7> References: <2811202.iOFZ6YHztY@kreacher> <20191016142343.GB5330@bogus> <20191017095725.izchzl7enfylvpf3@vireshk-i7> <20191017095942.GF8978@bogus> <20191018054433.tq2euue675xk4o63@vireshk-i7> <20191018082745.3zr6tc3yqmbydkrw@vireshk-i7> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: NeoMutt/20180716-391-311a52 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 18-10-19, 10:30, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Fri, Oct 18, 2019 at 10:27 AM Viresh Kumar wrote: > > > > On 18-10-19, 10:24, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > On Fri, Oct 18, 2019 at 7:44 AM Viresh Kumar wrote: > > > > > > > > On 17-10-19, 18:34, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > > > [BTW, Viresh, it looks like cpufreq_set_policy() should still ensure > > > > > that the new min is less than the new max, because the QoS doesn't do > > > > > that.] > > > > > > > > The ->verify() callback does that for us I believe. > > > > > > It does in practice AFAICS, but in theory it may assume the right > > > ordering between the min and the max and just test the boundaries, may > > > it not? > > > > I think cpufreq_verify_within_limits() gets called for sure from > > within ->verify() for all platforms > > That's why I mean by "in practice". :-) Hmm, I am not sure if we should really add another min <= max check in cpufreq_set_policy() as in practice it will never hit :) -- viresh