From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 03/14] sched/core: uclamp: add CPU's clamp groups
 accounting
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2018 15:45:45 +0200
Message-ID: <dfd21361-1776-16db-c37b-cecc5ebe6db5@arm.com>
References: <20180806163946.28380-1-patrick.bellasi@arm.com>
 <20180806163946.28380-4-patrick.bellasi@arm.com>
 <a24def9b-57bb-d072-5064-0421076d2e43@arm.com>
 <20180814164905.GG2605@e110439-lin>
 <7c45c1a8-24cb-6798-5b6f-3b5dfc9b490d@arm.com>
 <20180815105428.GA7388@e110439-lin>
 <ccd9c53f-55f7-a285-39eb-4303888dafcd@arm.com>
 <20180816133249.GA2964@e110439-lin>
 <20180816133737.xfwfoenbhb5wnndi@queper01-lin>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <20180816133737.xfwfoenbhb5wnndi@queper01-lin>
Content-Language: en-GB
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
To: Quentin Perret <quentin.perret@arm.com>, Patrick Bellasi <patrick.bellasi@arm.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>, Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>, "Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>, Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>, Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>, Paul Turner <pjt@google.com>, Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@arm.com>, Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>, Todd Kjos <tkjos@google.com>, Joel Fernandes <joelaf@google.com>, Steve Muckle <smuckle@google.com>, Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com>
List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org

On 08/16/2018 03:37 PM, Quentin Perret wrote:
>>> IMHO, if this is something which should not happen at all, a BUG_ON() is the
>>> right thing to do here.
>>
>> I don't agree on that. I agree it should not happen but since it's a
>> recoverable error it think we should not panic.
> 
> FWIW, if this is a recoverable error, I think Linus will agree with
> Patrick on this one :-)
> 
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/10/4/1

Yeah, not really agreeing here that this is a recoverable error. 
Besides, we only consider under-run here, what about over-run?

Currently this warning doesn't hit and if the code will be changed and 
it hits, I still find a BUG_ON more appealing here ...

So this error scenario can happen over and over again and we always 
recover from ? The important thing is that we find the culprit for this 
behaviour as fast as possible ...

Warning or bug, at least a stack trace is necessary.