Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 24 Feb 2024 20:53:25 +0530 | Subject | Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: Limit resolving a frequency to policy min/max | From | Shivnandan Kumar <> |
| |
Hi Rafael,
Thanks for reviewing the change.
On 2/23/2024 12:52 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Thu, Feb 22, 2024 at 9:35 AM Shivnandan Kumar > <quic_kshivnan@quicinc.com> wrote: >> >> Resolving a frequency to an efficient one should not transgress policy->max >> (which can be set for thermal reason) and policy->min. Currently there is >> possibility where scaling_cur_freq can exceed scaling_max_freq when >> scaling_max_freq is inefficient frequency. Add additional check to ensure >> that resolving a frequency will respect policy->min/max. >> >> Fixes: 1f39fa0dccff ("cpufreq: Introducing CPUFREQ_RELATION_E") >> Signed-off-by: Shivnandan Kumar <quic_kshivnan@quicinc.com> >> --- >> include/linux/cpufreq.h | 18 +++++++++++++++++- >> 1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >> >> diff --git a/include/linux/cpufreq.h b/include/linux/cpufreq.h >> index afda5f24d3dd..42d98b576a36 100644 >> --- a/include/linux/cpufreq.h >> +++ b/include/linux/cpufreq.h >> @@ -1021,6 +1021,19 @@ static inline int cpufreq_table_find_index_c(struct cpufreq_policy *policy, >> efficiencies); >> } >> >> +static inline bool cpufreq_table_index_is_in_limits(struct cpufreq_policy *policy, >> + int idx) > > This is not really about the index only, but about the frequency at > that index too, so I'd call the function differently. >
ACK
>> +{ >> + unsigned int freq; >> + >> + if (idx < 0) >> + return false; >> + >> + freq = policy->freq_table[idx].frequency; >> + >> + return (freq == clamp_val(freq, policy->min, policy->max)); > > Redundant outer parens. >
ACK
>> +} >> + >> static inline int cpufreq_frequency_table_target(struct cpufreq_policy *policy, >> unsigned int target_freq, >> unsigned int relation) >> @@ -1054,7 +1067,10 @@ static inline int cpufreq_frequency_table_target(struct cpufreq_policy *policy, >> return 0; >> } >> >> - if (idx < 0 && efficiencies) { >> + /* >> + * Limit frequency index to honor policy->min/max >> + */ > > This comment need not be multi-line. >
ACK I will make the changes in next patch set.
Thanks Shivnandan
>> + if (!cpufreq_table_index_is_in_limits(policy, idx) && efficiencies) { >> efficiencies = false; >> goto retry; >> } >> -- > > Thanks!
| |