lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2024]   [Feb]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH] cpufreq: Limit resolving a frequency to policy min/max
From
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!

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2024-05-27 15:20    [W:0.051 / U:1.500 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site