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 09:39:33 +0530
From:   Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
To:     Yue Hu <zbestahu@gmail.com>
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: <20210219040933.2o5hhbjb6emf3xl4@vireshk-i7>
References: <20210218082514.1437-1-zbestahu@gmail.com>
 <20210218102029.syj6vkltlbtoxsig@vireshk-i7>
 <20210219113804.00004a7e.zbestahu@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20210219113804.00004a7e.zbestahu@gmail.com>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20180716-391-311a52
Precedence: bulk

On 19-02-21, 11:38, Yue Hu wrote:
> 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().

Right.

> This possibility would happen now? And this
> update is what we want if it happens?

This is exactly what we want here, don't reduce speed for busy CPU, but we also
need to make sure we are in the policy's valid range which cpufreq core will
take care of.

> This is related to another possible patch ready to send.

I am not sure what's there to send now.

-- 
viresh