From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/2] cpufreq: schedutil: Force max frequency on busy CPUs
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2017 13:31:23 +0100
Message-ID: <7613782.1PkZjHhM6h@aspire.rjw.lan>
References: <4366682.tsferJN35u@aspire.rjw.lan> <135462462.sTWZ8TCakW@aspire.rjw.lan> <20170320103815.za7bgz4ttz67s746@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Return-path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <20170320103815.za7bgz4ttz67s746@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Linux PM <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@linux.intel.com>, Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>, Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@arm.com>, Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>, Patrick Bellasi <patrick.bellasi@arm.com>, Joel Fernandes <joelaf@google.com>, Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@arm.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>
List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org

On Monday, March 20, 2017 11:38:15 AM Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 19, 2017 at 10:24:24PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> 
> > Honestly, if the processor had been capable of doing per-core P-states, that
> > would have been a disaster and there are customers who wouldn't look at
> > schedutil again after being confronted with these numbers.
> 
> This, I feel, is a bit overstated.

Maybe a bit, but I'm not really sure ...

> We have bug, we fix them.

Of course. :-)