| Message ID | 20240308103630.383371-1-quic_sibis@quicinc.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Superseded |
| Headers | show |
| Series | [V2] cpufreq: Fix per-policy boost behavior on SoCs using cpufreq_boost_set_sw | expand |
On 08-03-24, 16:06, Sibi Sankar wrote: > + /* Let the per-policy boost flag mirror the cpufreq_driver boost during init */ > + if (cpufreq_driver->boost_enabled) > + policy->boost_enabled = policy_has_boost_freq(policy) ? true : false; Can be written as: policy->boost_enabled = cpufreq_boost_enabled() && policy_has_boost_freq(policy); Reviewed-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Hi, On Mar 11, 2024 at 10:20:44 +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 08-03-24, 16:06, Sibi Sankar wrote: > > + /* Let the per-policy boost flag mirror the cpufreq_driver boost during init */ > > + if (cpufreq_driver->boost_enabled) > > + policy->boost_enabled = policy_has_boost_freq(policy) ? true : false; > > Can be written as: > > policy->boost_enabled = cpufreq_boost_enabled() && policy_has_boost_freq(policy); I would like to recommend the same. > > Reviewed-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> Rest looks fine, Reviewed-by: Dhruva Gole <d-gole@ti.com>
diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c index f6f8d7f450e7..c04b2ba2993a 100644 --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c @@ -653,14 +653,16 @@ static ssize_t store_local_boost(struct cpufreq_policy *policy, if (policy->boost_enabled == enable) return count; + policy->boost_enabled = enable; + cpus_read_lock(); ret = cpufreq_driver->set_boost(policy, enable); cpus_read_unlock(); - if (ret) + if (ret) { + policy->boost_enabled = !policy->boost_enabled; return ret; - - policy->boost_enabled = enable; + } return count; } @@ -1428,6 +1430,10 @@ static int cpufreq_online(unsigned int cpu) goto out_free_policy; } + /* Let the per-policy boost flag mirror the cpufreq_driver boost during init */ + if (cpufreq_driver->boost_enabled) + policy->boost_enabled = policy_has_boost_freq(policy) ? true : false; + /* * The initialization has succeeded and the policy is online. * If there is a problem with its frequency table, take it @@ -2769,11 +2775,12 @@ int cpufreq_boost_trigger_state(int state) cpus_read_lock(); for_each_active_policy(policy) { + policy->boost_enabled = state; ret = cpufreq_driver->set_boost(policy, state); - if (ret) + if (ret) { + policy->boost_enabled = !policy->boost_enabled; goto err_reset_state; - - policy->boost_enabled = state; + } } cpus_read_unlock(); diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/freq_table.c b/drivers/cpufreq/freq_table.c index c4d4643b6ca6..c17dc51a5a02 100644 --- a/drivers/cpufreq/freq_table.c +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/freq_table.c @@ -40,7 +40,7 @@ int cpufreq_frequency_table_cpuinfo(struct cpufreq_policy *policy, cpufreq_for_each_valid_entry(pos, table) { freq = pos->frequency; - if (!cpufreq_boost_enabled() + if ((!cpufreq_boost_enabled() || !policy->boost_enabled) && (pos->flags & CPUFREQ_BOOST_FREQ)) continue;
In the existing code, per-policy flags doesn't have any impact i.e. if cpufreq_driver boost is enabled and one or more of the per-policy boost is disabled, the cpufreq driver will behave as if boost is enabled. Fix this by incorporating per-policy boost flag in the policy->max calculus used in cpufreq_frequency_table_cpuinfo and setting the default per-policy boost to mirror the cpufreq_driver boost flag. Fixes: 218a06a79d9a ("cpufreq: Support per-policy performance boost") Reported-by: Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com> Signed-off-by: Sibi Sankar <quic_sibis@quicinc.com> --- v2: * Enable per-policy boost flag in the core instead. [Viresh] * Add more details regarding the bug. [Viresh] * Drop cover-letter and patch 2. Logs reported-by Dietmar Eggemann: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/265e5f2c-9b45-420f-89b1-44369aeb8418@arm.com/ drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c | 19 +++++++++++++------ drivers/cpufreq/freq_table.c | 2 +- 2 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)