Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Thu, 16 Aug 2018 15:21:17 +0100
From:   Quentin Perret <quentin.perret@arm.com>
To:     Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>
Cc:     Patrick Bellasi <patrick.bellasi@arm.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>,
        "Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>,
        Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
        Paul Turner <pjt@google.com>,
        Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@arm.com>,
        Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
        Todd Kjos <tkjos@google.com>,
        Joel Fernandes <joelaf@google.com>,
        Steve Muckle <smuckle@google.com>,
        Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 03/14] sched/core: uclamp: add CPU's clamp groups
 accounting
Message-ID: <20180816142115.v7nybc4qfazdiz6n@queper01-lin>
References: <20180806163946.28380-1-patrick.bellasi@arm.com>
 <20180806163946.28380-4-patrick.bellasi@arm.com>
 <a24def9b-57bb-d072-5064-0421076d2e43@arm.com>
 <20180814164905.GG2605@e110439-lin>
 <7c45c1a8-24cb-6798-5b6f-3b5dfc9b490d@arm.com>
 <20180815105428.GA7388@e110439-lin>
 <ccd9c53f-55f7-a285-39eb-4303888dafcd@arm.com>
 <20180816133249.GA2964@e110439-lin>
 <20180816133737.xfwfoenbhb5wnndi@queper01-lin>
 <dfd21361-1776-16db-c37b-cecc5ebe6db5@arm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <dfd21361-1776-16db-c37b-cecc5ebe6db5@arm.com>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20171215
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thursday 16 Aug 2018 at 15:45:45 (+0200), Dietmar Eggemann wrote:
> On 08/16/2018 03:37 PM, Quentin Perret wrote:
> > > > IMHO, if this is something which should not happen at all, a BUG_ON() is the
> > > > right thing to do here.
> > > 
> > > I don't agree on that. I agree it should not happen but since it's a
> > > recoverable error it think we should not panic.
> > 
> > FWIW, if this is a recoverable error, I think Linus will agree with
> > Patrick on this one :-)
> > 
> > https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/10/4/1
> 
> Yeah, not really agreeing here that this is a recoverable error.

A non-recoverable scenario could be, for example, if you corrupt your
stack and there is absolutely _nothing_ you can do to keep the system up
and running, because it's just too broken. I don't feel like we're
talking about such an extreme case here ...

> Besides, we
> only consider under-run here, what about over-run?
> 
> Currently this warning doesn't hit and if the code will be changed and it
> hits, I still find a BUG_ON more appealing here ...
> 
> So this error scenario can happen over and over again and we always recover
> from ? The important thing is that we find the culprit for this behaviour as
> fast as possible ...

Agreed, we want to debug that ASAP, but WARN should let us do that just
fine, I think.

Quentin