| Message ID | 20240630210809.37550-1-visitorckw@gmail.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Superseded, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | ACPI: processor_idle: Fix invalid comparison with insertion sort for latency | expand |
+ linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Jul 01, 2024 at 05:08:09AM +0800, Kuan-Wei Chiu wrote: > The acpi_cst_latency_cmp comparison function currently used for sorting > C-state latencies does not satisfy transitivity, causing incorrect > sorting results. Specifically, if there are two valid acpi_processor_cx > elements A and B and one invalid element C, it may occur that A < B, > A = C, and B = C. Sorting algorithms assume that if A < B and A = C, > then C < B, leading to incorrect ordering. > > Given the small size of the array (<=8), we replace the library sort > function with a simple insertion sort that properly ignores invalid > elements and sorts valid ones based on latency. This change ensures > correct ordering of the C-state latencies. > > Fixes: 65ea8f2c6e23 ("ACPI: processor idle: Fix up C-state latency if not ordered") > Reported-by: Julian Sikorski <belegdol@gmail.com> > Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/70674dc7-5586-4183-8953-8095567e73df@gmail.com/ > Signed-off-by: Kuan-Wei Chiu <visitorckw@gmail.com> > --- > I do not have the appropriate AMD hardware to reproduce this issue and > test the patch. However, if the aforementioned reason is indeed the > source of the problem, I believe this patch might help. > > drivers/acpi/processor_idle.c | 33 ++++++++++++--------------------- > 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 21 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/acpi/processor_idle.c b/drivers/acpi/processor_idle.c > index bd6a7857ce05..d58a7c64d80b 100644 > --- a/drivers/acpi/processor_idle.c > +++ b/drivers/acpi/processor_idle.c > @@ -386,25 +386,19 @@ static void acpi_processor_power_verify_c3(struct acpi_processor *pr, > acpi_write_bit_register(ACPI_BITREG_BUS_MASTER_RLD, 1); > } > > -static int acpi_cst_latency_cmp(const void *a, const void *b) > +static void acpi_cst_latency_sort(struct acpi_processor_cx *arr, size_t length) > { > - const struct acpi_processor_cx *x = a, *y = b; > + int i, j, k; > > - if (!(x->valid && y->valid)) > - return 0; > - if (x->latency > y->latency) > - return 1; > - if (x->latency < y->latency) > - return -1; > - return 0; > -} > -static void acpi_cst_latency_swap(void *a, void *b, int n) > -{ > - struct acpi_processor_cx *x = a, *y = b; > - > - if (!(x->valid && y->valid)) > - return; > - swap(x->latency, y->latency); > + for (i = 1; i < length; i++) { > + for (j = i - 1, k = i; j >= 0; j--) { > + if (!arr[j].valid) > + continue; > + if (arr[j].latency > arr[k].latency) > + swap(arr[j].latency, arr[k].latency); > + k = j; > + } > + } > } > > static int acpi_processor_power_verify(struct acpi_processor *pr) > @@ -449,10 +443,7 @@ static int acpi_processor_power_verify(struct acpi_processor *pr) > > if (buggy_latency) { > pr_notice("FW issue: working around C-state latencies out of order\n"); > - sort(&pr->power.states[1], max_cstate, > - sizeof(struct acpi_processor_cx), > - acpi_cst_latency_cmp, > - acpi_cst_latency_swap); > + acpi_cst_latency_sort(&pr->power.states[1], max_cstate); > } > > lapic_timer_propagate_broadcast(pr); > -- > 2.34.1 >
diff --git a/drivers/acpi/processor_idle.c b/drivers/acpi/processor_idle.c index bd6a7857ce05..d58a7c64d80b 100644 --- a/drivers/acpi/processor_idle.c +++ b/drivers/acpi/processor_idle.c @@ -386,25 +386,19 @@ static void acpi_processor_power_verify_c3(struct acpi_processor *pr, acpi_write_bit_register(ACPI_BITREG_BUS_MASTER_RLD, 1); } -static int acpi_cst_latency_cmp(const void *a, const void *b) +static void acpi_cst_latency_sort(struct acpi_processor_cx *arr, size_t length) { - const struct acpi_processor_cx *x = a, *y = b; + int i, j, k; - if (!(x->valid && y->valid)) - return 0; - if (x->latency > y->latency) - return 1; - if (x->latency < y->latency) - return -1; - return 0; -} -static void acpi_cst_latency_swap(void *a, void *b, int n) -{ - struct acpi_processor_cx *x = a, *y = b; - - if (!(x->valid && y->valid)) - return; - swap(x->latency, y->latency); + for (i = 1; i < length; i++) { + for (j = i - 1, k = i; j >= 0; j--) { + if (!arr[j].valid) + continue; + if (arr[j].latency > arr[k].latency) + swap(arr[j].latency, arr[k].latency); + k = j; + } + } } static int acpi_processor_power_verify(struct acpi_processor *pr) @@ -449,10 +443,7 @@ static int acpi_processor_power_verify(struct acpi_processor *pr) if (buggy_latency) { pr_notice("FW issue: working around C-state latencies out of order\n"); - sort(&pr->power.states[1], max_cstate, - sizeof(struct acpi_processor_cx), - acpi_cst_latency_cmp, - acpi_cst_latency_swap); + acpi_cst_latency_sort(&pr->power.states[1], max_cstate); } lapic_timer_propagate_broadcast(pr);
The acpi_cst_latency_cmp comparison function currently used for sorting C-state latencies does not satisfy transitivity, causing incorrect sorting results. Specifically, if there are two valid acpi_processor_cx elements A and B and one invalid element C, it may occur that A < B, A = C, and B = C. Sorting algorithms assume that if A < B and A = C, then C < B, leading to incorrect ordering. Given the small size of the array (<=8), we replace the library sort function with a simple insertion sort that properly ignores invalid elements and sorts valid ones based on latency. This change ensures correct ordering of the C-state latencies. Fixes: 65ea8f2c6e23 ("ACPI: processor idle: Fix up C-state latency if not ordered") Reported-by: Julian Sikorski <belegdol@gmail.com> Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/70674dc7-5586-4183-8953-8095567e73df@gmail.com/ Signed-off-by: Kuan-Wei Chiu <visitorckw@gmail.com> --- I do not have the appropriate AMD hardware to reproduce this issue and test the patch. However, if the aforementioned reason is indeed the source of the problem, I believe this patch might help. drivers/acpi/processor_idle.c | 33 ++++++++++++--------------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 21 deletions(-)