| Message ID | 20240227091351.1144757-1-quic_kshivnan@quicinc.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Mainlined, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | [v2] cpufreq: Limit resolving a frequency to policy min/max | expand |
On Tue, Feb 27, 2024 at 10:15 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. > > Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org> > Fixes: 1f39fa0dccff ("cpufreq: Introducing CPUFREQ_RELATION_E") > Signed-off-by: Shivnandan Kumar <quic_kshivnan@quicinc.com> > -- > > Changes in v2: > -rename function name from cpufreq_table_index_is_in_limits to cpufreq_is_in_limits > -remove redundant outer parenthesis in return statement > -Make comment single line > > -- > --- > include/linux/cpufreq.h | 16 +++++++++++++++- > 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/include/linux/cpufreq.h b/include/linux/cpufreq.h > index afda5f24d3dd..7741244dee6e 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_is_in_limits(struct cpufreq_policy *policy, > + int idx) > +{ > + unsigned int freq; > + > + if (idx < 0) > + return false; > + > + freq = policy->freq_table[idx].frequency; > + > + return freq == clamp_val(freq, policy->min, policy->max); > +} > + > static inline int cpufreq_frequency_table_target(struct cpufreq_policy *policy, > unsigned int target_freq, > unsigned int relation) > @@ -1054,7 +1067,8 @@ 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 */ > + if (!cpufreq_is_in_limits(policy, idx) && efficiencies) { > efficiencies = false; > goto retry; > } > -- Applied (with a whitespace adjustment and changelog edits) as 6.9 material, thanks!
diff --git a/include/linux/cpufreq.h b/include/linux/cpufreq.h index afda5f24d3dd..7741244dee6e 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_is_in_limits(struct cpufreq_policy *policy, + int idx) +{ + unsigned int freq; + + if (idx < 0) + return false; + + freq = policy->freq_table[idx].frequency; + + return freq == clamp_val(freq, policy->min, policy->max); +} + static inline int cpufreq_frequency_table_target(struct cpufreq_policy *policy, unsigned int target_freq, unsigned int relation) @@ -1054,7 +1067,8 @@ 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 */ + if (!cpufreq_is_in_limits(policy, idx) && efficiencies) { efficiencies = false; goto retry; }
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. Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org> Fixes: 1f39fa0dccff ("cpufreq: Introducing CPUFREQ_RELATION_E") Signed-off-by: Shivnandan Kumar <quic_kshivnan@quicinc.com> -- Changes in v2: -rename function name from cpufreq_table_index_is_in_limits to cpufreq_is_in_limits -remove redundant outer parenthesis in return statement -Make comment single line -- --- include/linux/cpufreq.h | 16 +++++++++++++++- 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)