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:   Tue, 6 Aug 2019 09:30:59 +0530
From:   Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
To:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>
Cc:     Doug Smythies <dsmythies@telus.net>,
        "'Rafael J. Wysocki'" <rafael@kernel.org>,
        'Ingo Molnar' <mingo@redhat.com>,
        'Peter Zijlstra' <peterz@infradead.org>,
        'Linux PM' <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>,
        'Vincent Guittot' <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
        'Joel Fernandes' <joel@joelfernandes.org>,
        "'v4 . 18+'" <stable@vger.kernel.org>,
        'Linux Kernel Mailing List' <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: schedutil: Don't skip freq update when limits
 change
Message-ID: <20190806040059.ty4qhjarx4obomhs@vireshk-i7>
References: <CAJZ5v0ji+ksapJ4kc2m5UM_O+AShAvJWmYhTQHiXiHnpTq+xRg@mail.gmail.com>
 <000001d54892$a25b86b0$e7129410$@net>
 <20190802034819.vywlces7rxzfy33f@vireshk-i7>
 <1599417.3YyTWY6lWL@kreacher>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1599417.3YyTWY6lWL@kreacher>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20180716-391-311a52
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 02-08-19, 11:11, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Friday, August 2, 2019 5:48:19 AM CEST Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > On 01-08-19, 10:57, Doug Smythies wrote:
> > > Disagree.
> > > All I did was use a flag where it used to be set to UNIT_MAX, to basically
> > > implement the same thing.
> > 
> > And the earlier code wasn't fully correct as well, that's why we tried
> > to fix it earlier.
> 
> Your argument seems to be "There was an earlier problem related to this, which
> was fixed, so it is fragile and I'd rather avoid it".  Still, you are claiming that the
> code was in fact incorrect and you are not giving convincing arguments to
> support that.
> 
> > So introducing the UINT_MAX thing again would be
> > wrong, even if it fixes the problem for you.
> 
> Would it be wrong, because it would reintroduce the fragile code, or would it
> be wrong, because it would re-introduce a bug?  What bug if so?

There will be two issues here if that patch is reintroduced:

- It will cause the BUG to reappear, which was fixed by the earlier
  commit. The commit log of ecd28842912 explains the bug in detail.

- And overriding next_freq as a flag will make the code fragile and we
  may have similar bugs coming up.

But yeah, lets continue discussion on the intel-pstate patch now.

-- 
viresh