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:   Tue, 16 Mar 2021 15:35:37 +0100
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To:     Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org>
Cc:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "Zhou Ti (x2019cwm)" <x2019cwm@stfx.ca>,
        "Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>,
        Yunfeng Ye <yeyunfeng@huawei.com>,
        "Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>,
        Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@redhat.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/10] tick/nohz: Prevent tick_nohz_get_sleep_length()
 from returning negative value
Message-ID: <YFDCOYstnDWPSWRU@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <20210311123708.23501-1-frederic@kernel.org>
 <20210311123708.23501-2-frederic@kernel.org>
 <YFCiycIaViYCy3GH@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20210316133703.GC639918@lothringen>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20210316133703.GC639918@lothringen>
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 02:37:03PM +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 01:21:29PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 11, 2021 at 01:36:59PM +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > > From: "Zhou Ti (x2019cwm)" <x2019cwm@stfx.ca>
> > > 
> > > If the hardware clock happens to fire its interrupts late, two possible
> > > issues can happen while calling tick_nohz_get_sleep_length(). Either:
> > > 
> > > 1) The next clockevent device event is due past the last idle entry time.
> > > 
> > > or:
> > > 
> > > 2) The last timekeeping update happened before the last idle entry time
> > >    and the next timer callback expires before the last idle entry time.
> > > 
> > > Make sure that both cases are handled to avoid returning a negative
> > > duration to the cpuidle governors.
> > 
> > Why? ... and wouldn't it be cheaper the fix the caller to
> > check negative once, instead of adding two branches here?
> 
> There are already two callers and potentially two return values to check
> for each because the function returns two values.
> 
> I'd rather make the API more robust instead of fixing each callers and worrying
> about future ones.

But what's the actual problem? The Changelog doesn't say why returning a
negative value is a problem, and in fact the return value is explicitly
signed.

Anyway, I don't terribly mind the patch, I was just confused by the lack
of actual justification.