Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-93925-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.80.249 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.80.249;
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20240306085428.88011-1-daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>
 <CAJZ5v0jAn2F-GH=fguX0+3bG38vyAxfufadtFiBUfg=EjTBh6Q@mail.gmail.com> <14651d5b-0f67-4bff-b699-2cd1601b4fb2@linaro.org>
In-Reply-To: <14651d5b-0f67-4bff-b699-2cd1601b4fb2@linaro.org>
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>
Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2024 13:53:07 +0100
Message-ID: <CAJZ5v0j6At1DuQYjjbA-fw9Z-jJPhXSVSz=_uLa3KfNMJowYbA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] thermal/core: Fix trip point crossing events ordering
To: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>, rjw@rjwysocki.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, 
	Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@intel.com>, Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@arm.com>, 
	"open list:THERMAL" <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Wed, Mar 6, 2024 at 1:43=E2=80=AFPM Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linar=
o.org> wrote:
>
> On 06/03/2024 13:02, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>
> [ ... ]
>
> >> +#define for_each_trip_reverse(__tz, __trip)    \
> >> +       for (__trip =3D &__tz->trips[__tz->num_trips - 1]; __trip >=3D=
 __tz->trips ; __trip--)
> >> +
> >>   void __thermal_zone_set_trips(struct thermal_zone_device *tz);
> >>   int thermal_zone_trip_id(const struct thermal_zone_device *tz,
> >>                           const struct thermal_trip *trip);
> >> --
> >
> > Generally speaking, this is a matter of getting alignment on the
> > expectations between the kernel and user space.
> >
> > It looks like user space expects to get the notifications in the order
> > of either growing or falling temperatures, depending on the direction
> > of the temperature change.  Ordering the trips in the kernel is not
> > practical, but the notifications can be ordered in principle.  Is this
> > what you'd like to do?
>
> Yes
>
> > Or can user space be bothered with recognizing that it may get the
> > notifications for different trips out of order?
>
> IMO it is a bad information if the trip points events are coming
> unordered. The temperature signal is a time related measurements, the
> userspace should receive thermal information from this signal in the
> right order. It sounds strange to track the temperature signal in the
> kernel, then scramble the information, pass it to the userspace and
> except it to apply some kind of logic to unscramble it.

So the notifications can be ordered before sending them out, as long
as they are produced by a single __thermal_zone_device_update() call.

I guess you also would like the thermal_debug_tz_trip_up/down() calls
to be ordered, wouldn't you?