Hi Ionela,
So sorry for relpying so late, lost if from my rader for a while ...
On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 02:01:54PM +0000, Ionela Voinescu wrote:
> Hi Beata, Sumit,
>
> On Monday 27 Nov 2023 at 16:08:38 (+0000), Beata Michalska wrote:
> > From: Sumit Gupta <sumitg@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > When available, use arch_freq_get_on_cpu to obtain current frequency
> > (usually an average reported over given period of time)
> > to better align the cpufreq's view on the current state of affairs.
> > This also automatically pulls in the update for cpuinfo_cur_freq sysfs
> > attribute, aligning it with the scaling_cur_freq one, and thus providing
> > consistent view on relevant platforms.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Sumit Gupta <sumitg@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > [BM: Subject & commit msg]
> > Signed-off-by: Beata Michalska <beata.michalska@xxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c | 3 ++-
> > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> > index 8c4f9c2f9c44..109559438f45 100644
> > --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> > +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> > @@ -1756,7 +1756,8 @@ static unsigned int cpufreq_verify_current_freq(struct cpufreq_policy *policy, b
> > {
> > unsigned int new_freq;
> >
> > - new_freq = cpufreq_driver->get(policy->cpu);
> > + new_freq = arch_freq_get_on_cpu(policy->cpu);
> > + new_freq = new_freq ?: cpufreq_driver->get(policy->cpu);
>
> Given that arch_freq_get_on_cpu() is an average frequency, it does not
> seem right to me to trigger the sync & update process of
> cpufreq_verify_current_freq() based on it.
>
> cpufreq_verify_current_freq() will at least modify the internal state of
> the policy and send PRE and POST notifications, if not do a full frequency
> update, based on this average frequency, which is likely different from
> the current frequency, even beyond the 1MHz threshold.
>
Noted, will drop this change.
---
BR
Beata
> While I believe it's okay to return this average frequency in
> cpuinfo_cur_freq, I don't think it should be used as an indication of
> an accurate current frequency, which is what
> cpufreq_verify_current_freq() expects.
>
> Sumit, can you give more details on the issue at [1] and why this change
> fixes it?
>
> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/6a5710f6-bfbb-5dfd-11cd-0cd02220cee7@xxxxxxxxxx/
>
> Thank you,
> Ionela.
>
> > if (!new_freq)
> > return 0;
> >
> > --
> > 2.25.1
> >
