From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752289AbcGVV25 (ORCPT ); Fri, 22 Jul 2016 17:28:57 -0400 Received: from mail-pa0-f41.google.com ([209.85.220.41]:33356 "EHLO mail-pa0-f41.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751176AbcGVV2z (ORCPT ); Fri, 22 Jul 2016 17:28:55 -0400 Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2016 14:28:52 -0700 From: Viresh Kumar To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Cc: Andreas Herrmann , Jacob Tanenbaum , stable@vger.kernel.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] Revert "cpufreq: pcc-cpufreq: update default value of cpuinfo_transition_latency" Message-ID: <20160722212852.GE3122@ubuntu> References: <20160722151411.GB11711@suselix.suse.de> <20160722153656.GR3122@ubuntu> <3431802.ZZWypmTthK@vostro.rjw.lan> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3431802.ZZWypmTthK@vostro.rjw.lan> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 22-07-16, 23:31, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > cpufreq.c > > > > if (policy->governor->max_transition_latency && > > policy->cpuinfo.transition_latency > > > policy->governor->max_transition_latency) { > > > > - And this check will always fail, unless max_transition_latency is zero. > > Why would it fail? If governor->max_transition_latency is non-zero, but less > than UNIT_MAX, the condition checked will be true to my eyes. Bad wording. Sorry. I meant, this 'if' check will always succeed (as you also noted), and so we will always get the error message reported in this patch. cpufreq: ondemand governor failed, too long transition latency of HW, fallback to performance governor -- viresh