From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S1752205AbdFLDo0 (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Sun, 11 Jun 2017 23:44:26 -0400
Received: from mail-pf0-f178.google.com ([209.85.192.178]:36403 "EHLO
        mail-pf0-f178.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1752122AbdFLDoY (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Sun, 11 Jun 2017 23:44:24 -0400
Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2017 09:14:20 +0530
From: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
To: Joel Fernandes <joelaf@google.com>
Cc: Rafael Wysocki <rjw@rjwysocki.net>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>, linaro-kernel@lists.linaro.org,
        Linux PM <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
        Juri Lelli <Juri.Lelli@arm.com>,
        Patrick Bellasi <patrick.bellasi@arm.com>,
        John Ettedgui <john.ettedgui@gmail.com>,
        Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@linux.intel.com>,
        Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@arm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] cpufreq: schedutil: Fix selection algorithm while
 reducing frequency
Message-ID: <20170612034420.GD5297@vireshk-i7>
References: <cover.1497002895.git.viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
 <8d5e793df4f06d54794a889543817cf5be131650.1497002895.git.viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
 <CAJWu+or0GhiVS2rTAGMzS+y5xMrVUakYKO8G7u5Cn1dHX_P=SQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJWu+oomeeyCaz_zXQRGgz+yB59AANnrMLtXV8Lu+n=UvMhkcA@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAJWu+oomeeyCaz_zXQRGgz+yB59AANnrMLtXV8Lu+n=UvMhkcA@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On 10-06-17, 23:21, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 10, 2017 at 2:11 AM, Joel Fernandes <joelaf@google.com> wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 9, 2017 at 3:15 AM, Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> wrote:
> >> While reducing frequency if there are no frequencies available between
> >> "current" and "next" calculated frequency, then the core will never
> >> select the "next" frequency.
> >>
> >> For example, consider the possible range of frequencies as 900 MHz, 1
> >> GHz, 1.1 GHz, and 1.2 GHz. If the current frequency is 1.1 GHz and the
> >> next frequency (based on current utilization) is 1 GHz, then the
> >> schedutil governor will try to set the average of these as the next
> >> frequency (i.e. 1.05 GHz).
> >>
> >> Because we always try to find the lowest frequency greater than equal to
> >> the target frequency, cpufreq_driver_resolve_freq() will end up
> >> returning 1.1 GHz only. And we will not be able to reduce the frequency
> >> eventually. The worst hit is the policy->min frequency as that will
> >> never get selected after the frequency is increased once.
> >
> > But once utilization goes to 0, it will select the min frequency
> > (because it selects lowest frequency >= target)?
> 
> Never mind my comment about util 0, I see the problem you mention.
> However I feel that this entire series adds complexity all to handle
> the case of a false cache-miss which I think might not be that bad,
> and the tradeoff with complexity/readability of the code kind of
> negates the benefit. That's just my opinion about it fwiw.

Right and that's why I said in the cover letter that we may want to revert the
offending commit for the time being as the solutions provided here have too much
dependency on the resolve_freq() callback.

-- 
viresh