From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
To: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, stable@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH AUTOSEL 4.19 123/158] cpufreq: Don't skip frequency validation for has_target() drivers
Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2019 11:21:34 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <92ae669e-654c-40b2-0470-e9280d9c2dd0@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190715141809.8445-123-sashal@kernel.org>
On 7/15/2019 4:17 PM, Sasha Levin wrote:
> From: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
>
> [ Upstream commit 9801522840cc1073f8064b4c979b7b6995c74bca ]
>
> CPUFREQ_CONST_LOOPS was introduced in a very old commit from pre-2.6
> kernel release by commit 6a4a93f9c0d5 ("[CPUFREQ] Fix 'out of sync'
> issue").
>
> Basically, that commit does two things:
>
> - It adds the frequency verification code (which is quite similar to
> what we have today as well).
>
> - And it sets the CPUFREQ_CONST_LOOPS flag only for setpolicy drivers,
> rightly so based on the code we had then. The idea was to avoid
> frequency validation for setpolicy drivers as the cpufreq core doesn't
> know what frequency the hardware is running at and so no point in
> doing frequency verification.
>
> The problem happened when we started to use the same CPUFREQ_CONST_LOOPS
> flag for constant loops-per-jiffy thing as well and many has_target()
> drivers started using the same flag and unknowingly skipped the
> verification of frequency. There is no logical reason behind skipping
> frequency validation because of the presence of CPUFREQ_CONST_LOOPS
> flag otherwise.
>
> Fix this issue by skipping frequency validation only for setpolicy
> drivers and always doing it for has_target() drivers irrespective of
> the presence or absence of CPUFREQ_CONST_LOOPS flag.
>
> cpufreq_notify_transition() is only called for has_target() type driver
> and not for set_policy type, and the check is simply redundant. Remove
> it as well.
>
> Also remove () around freq comparison statement as they aren't required
> and checkpatch also warns for them.
>
> Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
> Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
> Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>
> ---
> drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c | 13 +++++--------
> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> index d3213594d1a7..80942ec34efd 100644
> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> @@ -321,12 +321,10 @@ static void cpufreq_notify_transition(struct cpufreq_policy *policy,
> * which is not equal to what the cpufreq core thinks is
> * "old frequency".
> */
> - if (!(cpufreq_driver->flags & CPUFREQ_CONST_LOOPS)) {
> - if (policy->cur && (policy->cur != freqs->old)) {
> - pr_debug("Warning: CPU frequency is %u, cpufreq assumed %u kHz\n",
> - freqs->old, policy->cur);
> - freqs->old = policy->cur;
> - }
> + if (policy->cur && policy->cur != freqs->old) {
> + pr_debug("Warning: CPU frequency is %u, cpufreq assumed %u kHz\n",
> + freqs->old, policy->cur);
> + freqs->old = policy->cur;
> }
>
> for_each_cpu(freqs->cpu, policy->cpus) {
> @@ -1543,8 +1541,7 @@ static unsigned int __cpufreq_get(struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
> if (policy->fast_switch_enabled)
> return ret_freq;
>
> - if (ret_freq && policy->cur &&
> - !(cpufreq_driver->flags & CPUFREQ_CONST_LOOPS)) {
> + if (has_target() && ret_freq && policy->cur) {
> /* verify no discrepancy between actual and
> saved value exists */
> if (unlikely(ret_freq != policy->cur)) {
This is not -stable material, please drop it.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-07-16 9:21 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <20190715141809.8445-1-sashal@kernel.org>
2019-07-15 14:16 ` [PATCH AUTOSEL 4.19 040/158] cpupower : frequency-set -r option misses the last cpu in related cpu list Sasha Levin
2019-07-15 14:16 ` [PATCH AUTOSEL 4.19 065/158] x86/cpu: Add Ice Lake NNPI to Intel family Sasha Levin
2019-07-15 14:17 ` [PATCH AUTOSEL 4.19 123/158] cpufreq: Don't skip frequency validation for has_target() drivers Sasha Levin
2019-07-16 9:21 ` Rafael J. Wysocki [this message]
2019-07-22 0:40 ` Sasha Levin
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=92ae669e-654c-40b2-0470-e9280d9c2dd0@intel.com \
--to=rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=sashal@kernel.org \
--cc=stable@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=viresh.kumar@linaro.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).