Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S1751764AbdGUGDA (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Fri, 21 Jul 2017 02:03:00 -0400
Received: from mail-oi0-f52.google.com ([209.85.218.52]:33154 "EHLO
        mail-oi0-f52.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1751016AbdGUGC6 (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Fri, 21 Jul 2017 02:02:58 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20170721040956.GL352@vireshk-i7>
References: <20170716080407.28492-1-joelaf@google.com> <20170717080441.GM352@vireshk-i7>
 <CAJWu+oqU+qVMM4M0k4d7YeUFV-Aq4vZUU3JyWrMy6GQHA1MLQw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20170718054558.GU352@vireshk-i7> <CAJWu+op=S3KBr+gQo=wdRfwYSPt5FDwhQu6tBbGHCX=DUh830w@mail.gmail.com>
 <20170719061937.GB352@vireshk-i7> <CAJWu+ooAJOCofKdqKTKe=eO7TPURtSjcDQvUUZdzs+N5h38mgQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20170720034148.GI352@vireshk-i7> <CAJWu+oqCnvi0ZvsbWOxJ2aSr+Vw6iXS+evxPLbUB1+CMf6v9+A@mail.gmail.com>
 <20170721040956.GL352@vireshk-i7>
From: Joel Fernandes <joelaf@google.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2017 23:02:57 -0700
Message-ID: <CAJWu+ookyOQGoBOsAWa4qezp_H_=1OGho7rwJdO=0iKy0EWNxg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v5] cpufreq: schedutil: Make iowait boost more energy efficient
To: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@arm.com>,
        Patrick Bellasi <patrick.bellasi@arm.com>,
        Andres Oportus <andresoportus@google.com>,
        Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
        Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@linux.intel.com>,
        Len Brown <lenb@kernel.org>, "Rafael J . Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 632
Lines: 18

On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 9:09 PM, Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> wrote:
> On 20-07-17, 12:49, Joel Fernandes wrote:
>> Yes I think that's fine, I thought about it some more and I think this
>> can be an issue in a scenario where
>>
>> iowait_boost_max < policy->min  but:

Uhh I meant to say here iowait_boost < policy->min. Sorry.

> We will never have this case as boost-max is set to cpuinfo.max_freq.

But you're right it can't be an issue in current code. I was just
thinking of future proofing it incase someone decided to lower the
boost-max in the code for whatever reason and forgets to handle this.

thanks,

-Joel