Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Fri, 19 Feb 2021 11:38:04 +0800
From:   Yue Hu <zbestahu@gmail.com>
To:     Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Cc:     rjw@rjwysocki.net, mingo@redhat.com, peterz@infradead.org,
        juri.lelli@redhat.com, vincent.guittot@linaro.org,
        dietmar.eggemann@arm.com, rostedt@goodmis.org, bsegall@google.com,
        linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        huyue2@yulong.com, zbestahu@163.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: schedutil: Don't consider freq reduction to
 busy CPU if need_freq_update is set
Message-ID: <20210219113804.00004a7e.zbestahu@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <20210218102029.syj6vkltlbtoxsig@vireshk-i7>
References: <20210218082514.1437-1-zbestahu@gmail.com>
        <20210218102029.syj6vkltlbtoxsig@vireshk-i7>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, 18 Feb 2021 15:50:29 +0530
Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> wrote:

> On 18-02-21, 16:25, Yue Hu wrote:
> > From: Yue Hu <huyue2@yulong.com>
> > 
> > For busy CPU case, we do not need to avoid freq reduction if limits
> > change since commit 600f5badb78c ("cpufreq: schedutil: Don't skip
> > freq update when limits change").
> > 
> > Later, commit 23a881852f3e ("cpufreq: schedutil: Don't skip freq
> > update if need_freq_update is set") discarded the need_freq_update
> > check for special case of busy CPU because we won't abort a
> > frequency update anymore if need_freq_update is set.
> > 
> > That is nonlogical since we will not reduce the freq for busy CPU
> > if the computed next_f is really reduced when limits change.  
> 
> Schedutil governor will probably ask for a higher frequency than
> allowed, but cpufreq core will clamp the request between policy
> min/max before updating the frequency here.
> 
> We added the check in 600f5badb78c here earlier as there were chances
> that we will abort the operation without reaching to cpufreq core,
> which won't happen now.
> 

There's a possibility: we will use the previous freq to update if next_f
is reduced for busy CPU if need_freq_update is set in
sugov_update_next_freq(). This possibility would happen now? And this
update is what we want if it happens? This is related to another
possible patch ready to send.

Thank you.