Re: [PATCH v2 1/1] cpufreq: fix the target freq not in the range of policy->min & max

[Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>]

On 27-06-21, 00:23, TungChen Shih wrote:
>     The function cpufreq_driver_resolve_freq() should return the lowest

Don't add extra spaces at the beginning of paragraphs here.

> supported freq greater than or equal to the given target_freq, subject
> to policy (min/max) and driver limitations. However, the index returned
> by cpufreq_frequency_table_target() won't subject to policy min/max in
> some cases.
> 
>     In cpufreq_frequency_table_target(), this function will try to find
> an index for @target_freq in freq_table, and the frequency of selected
> index should be in the range [policy->min, policy->max], which means:
> 
>     policy->min <= policy->freq_table[idx].frequency <= policy->max
> 
>     Though "clamp_val(target_freq, policy->min, policy->max);" would
> have been called to check this condition, when policy->max or min is
> not exactly one of the frequency in the frequency table,
> policy->freq_table[idx].frequency may still go out of the range
> 
>     For example, if our sorted freq_table is [3000, 2000, 1000], and
> suppose we have:
> 
>     @target_freq = 2500
>     @policy->min = 2000
>     @policy->max = 2200
>     @relation = CPUFREQ_RELATION_L
> 
> 1. After clamp_val(target_freq, policy->min, policy->max); @target_freq
> becomes 2200
> 2. Since we use CPUFREQ_REALTION_L, final selected freq will be 3000 which
> beyonds policy->max

Right so the problem does exist, and not only with
cpufreq_driver_resolve_freq(), but __cpufreq_driver_target() as well.
I have a sent a patchset to update both of these to start sharing some
code and we need to fix this for both now.

> Signed-off-by: TungChen Shih <tung-chen.shih@mediatek.com>
> ---
>  drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c | 15 +++++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 15 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> index 802abc925b2a..8e3a17781618 100644
> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> @@ -544,8 +544,23 @@ unsigned int cpufreq_driver_resolve_freq(struct cpufreq_policy *policy,
>  	if (cpufreq_driver->target_index) {
>  		unsigned int idx;
>  
> +		/*  to find the frequency >= target_freq */
>  		idx = cpufreq_frequency_table_target(policy, target_freq,
>  						     CPUFREQ_RELATION_L);
> +
> +		/* frequency should subject to policy (min/max) */
> +		if (policy->freq_table[idx].frequency > policy->max) {
> +			if (policy->freq_table_sorted == CPUFREQ_TABLE_SORTED_ASCENDING)
> +				idx--;
> +			else
> +				idx++;
> +		} else if (policy->freq_table[idx].frequency < policy->min) {
> +			if (policy->freq_table_sorted == CPUFREQ_TABLE_SORTED_ASCENDING)
> +				idx++;
> +			else
> +				idx--;
> +		}

This doesn't look clean to be honest.

Rafael, does it make sense to update cpufreq_frequency_table_target()
(and its internal routines) to take policy bounds in consideration, or
something else ?

-- 
viresh