Received: by 2002:a25:ad19:0:0:0:0:0 with SMTP id y25csp1054011ybi; Tue, 16 Jul 2019 08:59:50 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqyGa+4iAw/Pd6onxnldW2UueTy9enaksRmokd2xgHz1a9STxEpoFB67VDIpqV4b/E9sF42w X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:e30d:: with SMTP id cg13mr36429306plb.173.1563292789931; Tue, 16 Jul 2019 08:59:49 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1563292789; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=HyXzSyRKKSgzM8T56vVnsrdG6eIrWSb1uwFH/hXHLJkx2jemOx4kDHXXNT/sKQ8xmP /YYZIRj8TCkH3Y/msCP9ygNETCF9r+EEENk94KDppL85HbwVrLfACl6YeO9S7sqp5Ly7 Yy/dIgnHuhAP139QSig9hvzmSA9UXK0JQHRvfJ7onHyYFSJ2D+GQ3wzPewRK1CkRS9x5 x4h2KUciqH7Dw+LgAbvGXcp0TYSwOdQUTNG6gGyh4s6scBTJYa2pDwUXCNySrrgYIQd+ C3Ny2m+ubMaHzfOf0jFGiDSJznXovnsVD23FcFnuAoR+yvUmUd+sQgQnsxHO1K8MO46z 8itA== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:sender:user-agent:in-reply-to :content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id:subject:cc :to:from:date; bh=cnY3+/QMKMIpit9s7xU8XezIRLIci9/pBYtiH9DpNCc=; b=mejPODqT4W6n08AWTLwmzUv40WXQVZom4CHiFGAyo2a9NrTTlGVcf1TkFxQMJjSGLW HYWXUi3xGOya00wTZwZQkPAZ+IoohLcgPBjdbPWmVzPjK3ZS+nxf5W0uomq1LHCc/Lnq jlCtAFKOq/yRJO5UhTDO/Npt0M4wVBJShRmOQANauqwGyI03MF8fmTI4RvYvsb+MQmhX P9Zm3yR9ZhFZaB9yqZ5nWKXIpsTe2vscUV7VQ9B98i2sw6VFMmCV5t4woyit5MLbCcVM gfJSWoES2btGmUds4AMPeP8qVE1ly4O7/ldrX/qReLjsLemiikfz0QvUG5S7UiYtGdPN XCJg== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org. [209.132.180.67]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id y134si20069641pfc.285.2019.07.16.08.59.33; Tue, 16 Jul 2019 08:59:49 -0700 (PDT) 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; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S2388057AbfGPP64 (ORCPT + 99 others); Tue, 16 Jul 2019 11:58:56 -0400 Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:52420 "EHLO mx1.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1728121AbfGPP64 (ORCPT ); Tue, 16 Jul 2019 11:58:56 -0400 X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at test-mx.suse.de Received: from relay2.suse.de (unknown [195.135.220.254]) by mx1.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2639DAD05; Tue, 16 Jul 2019 15:58:54 +0000 (UTC) Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2019 17:58:52 +0200 From: Michal =?iso-8859-1?Q?Koutn=FD?= To: Patrick Bellasi Cc: Alessio Balsini , Dietmar Eggemann , Morten Rasmussen , Quentin Perret , Joel Fernandes , Paul Turner , Steve Muckle , Suren Baghdasaryan , Todd Kjos , Peter Zijlstra , "Rafael J . Wysocki" , Tejun Heo , Vincent Guittot , Viresh Kumar , Juri Lelli , Ingo Molnar , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v11 4/5] sched/core: uclamp: Use TG's clamps to restrict TASK's clamps Message-ID: <20190716155852.GF32540@blackbody.suse.cz> References: <20190708084357.12944-1-patrick.bellasi@arm.com> <20190708084357.12944-5-patrick.bellasi@arm.com> <20190715164248.GA21982@blackbody.suse.cz> <20190716143435.iwwd6fjr3udlqol4@e110439-lin> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20190716143435.iwwd6fjr3udlqol4@e110439-lin> User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Jul 16, 2019 at 03:34:35PM +0100, Patrick Bellasi wrote: > Am I missing something? No, it's rather my misinterpretation of the syscall semantics. > Otherwise, I think the changelog sentence you quoted is just > misleading. It certainly mislead me to thinking about the sched_setattr calls as requests of utilization being in the given interval (substituting 0 or 1 when only one boundary is given, and further constrained by tg's interval). I see your point, those are actually two (mostly) independent controls. Makes sense now. Thanks, Michal