Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-12806-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1;
Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2023 17:13:15 +0000
From: Qais Yousef <qyousef@layalina.io>
To: Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@arm.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org,
	rafael@kernel.org, dietmar.eggemann@arm.com, rui.zhang@intel.com,
	amit.kucheria@verdurent.com, amit.kachhap@gmail.com,
	daniel.lezcano@linaro.org, viresh.kumar@linaro.org,
	len.brown@intel.com, pavel@ucw.cz, mhiramat@kernel.org,
	wvw@google.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 03/23] PM: EM: Find first CPU active while updating
 OPP efficiency
Message-ID: <20231228171315.bmjdo5eztyix5o3r@airbuntu>
References: <20231129110853.94344-1-lukasz.luba@arm.com>
 <20231129110853.94344-4-lukasz.luba@arm.com>
 <20231217175829.a6hqz7mqlvrujsvs@airbuntu>
 <b31672e4-ab41-4724-86ef-038606318663@arm.com>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <b31672e4-ab41-4724-86ef-038606318663@arm.com>

On 12/19/23 10:53, Lukasz Luba wrote:
> 
> 
> On 12/17/23 17:58, Qais Yousef wrote:
> > On 11/29/23 11:08, Lukasz Luba wrote:
> > > The Energy Model might be updated at runtime and the energy efficiency
> > > for each OPP may change. Thus, there is a need to update also the
> > > cpufreq framework and make it aligned to the new values. In order to
> > > do that, use a first active CPU from the Performance Domain. This is
> > > needed since the first CPU in the cpumask might be offline when we
> > > run this code path.
> > 
> > I didn't understand the problem here. It seems you're fixing a race, but the
> > description is not clear to me what the race is.
> 
> I have explained that in v1, v4 comments for this patch.
> When the EM is registered the fist CPU is always online. No problem
> for the old code, but for new code with runtime modification at
> later time, potentially from different subsystems - it it (e.g. thermal,
> drivers, etc). The fist CPU might be offline, but still such EM
> update for this domain shouldn'y fail. Although, when the CPU is offline
> we cannot get the valid policy...
> 
> We can get it for next cpu in the cpumask, that's what the code is
> doing.

Okay, I can see now that cpufreq_cpu_get_raw() ignores offline CPUs
intentionally.

A new variant seems better to me. But the experts know better. So LGTM.