Message ID | 20210625134129.11885-1-tung-chen.shih@mediatek.com |
---|---|
State | New |
Headers | show |
Series | [v1,1/1] cpufreq: fix the target freq not in the range of policy->min & max | expand |
On Fri, Jun 25, 2021 at 3:41 PM TungChen Shih <tung-chen.shih@mediatek.com> wrote: > > 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 As you accurately observed, the policy limits affect the target, not the frequency that will be used, and "RELATION_L" means "the closest frequency equal to or above the target". You are not fixing a bug here IMO, you're changing the documented behavior. > Signed-off-by: TungChen Shih <tung-chen.shih@mediatek.com> > --- > include/linux/cpufreq.h | 25 ++++++++++++++++++++++--- > 1 file changed, 22 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/include/linux/cpufreq.h b/include/linux/cpufreq.h > index 353969c7acd3..60cb15740fdf 100644 > --- a/include/linux/cpufreq.h > +++ b/include/linux/cpufreq.h > @@ -975,21 +975,40 @@ static inline int cpufreq_frequency_table_target(struct cpufreq_policy *policy, > unsigned int target_freq, > unsigned int relation) > { > + int idx = 0; > if (unlikely(policy->freq_table_sorted == CPUFREQ_TABLE_UNSORTED)) > return cpufreq_table_index_unsorted(policy, target_freq, > relation); > > switch (relation) { > case CPUFREQ_RELATION_L: > - return cpufreq_table_find_index_l(policy, target_freq); > + idx = cpufreq_table_find_index_l(policy, target_freq); > + break; > case CPUFREQ_RELATION_H: > - return cpufreq_table_find_index_h(policy, target_freq); > + idx = cpufreq_table_find_index_h(policy, target_freq); > + break; > case CPUFREQ_RELATION_C: > - return cpufreq_table_find_index_c(policy, target_freq); > + idx = cpufreq_table_find_index_c(policy, target_freq); > + break; > default: > WARN_ON_ONCE(1); > return 0; > } > + > + /* target index verification */ > + 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--; > + } > + > + return idx; > } > > static inline int cpufreq_table_count_valid_entries(const struct cpufreq_policy *policy) > -- > 2.18.0 >
diff --git a/include/linux/cpufreq.h b/include/linux/cpufreq.h index 353969c7acd3..60cb15740fdf 100644 --- a/include/linux/cpufreq.h +++ b/include/linux/cpufreq.h @@ -975,21 +975,40 @@ static inline int cpufreq_frequency_table_target(struct cpufreq_policy *policy, unsigned int target_freq, unsigned int relation) { + int idx = 0; if (unlikely(policy->freq_table_sorted == CPUFREQ_TABLE_UNSORTED)) return cpufreq_table_index_unsorted(policy, target_freq, relation); switch (relation) { case CPUFREQ_RELATION_L: - return cpufreq_table_find_index_l(policy, target_freq); + idx = cpufreq_table_find_index_l(policy, target_freq); + break; case CPUFREQ_RELATION_H: - return cpufreq_table_find_index_h(policy, target_freq); + idx = cpufreq_table_find_index_h(policy, target_freq); + break; case CPUFREQ_RELATION_C: - return cpufreq_table_find_index_c(policy, target_freq); + idx = cpufreq_table_find_index_c(policy, target_freq); + break; default: WARN_ON_ONCE(1); return 0; } + + /* target index verification */ + 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--; + } + + return idx; } static inline int cpufreq_table_count_valid_entries(const struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
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 Signed-off-by: TungChen Shih <tung-chen.shih@mediatek.com> --- include/linux/cpufreq.h | 25 ++++++++++++++++++++++--- 1 file changed, 22 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)