This is a note to let you know that I've just added the patch titled
cpufreq: intel_pstate: Drop redundant intel_pstate_get_hwp_cap() call
to the 5.15-stable tree which can be found at:
http://www.kernel.org/git/?p=linux/kernel/git/stable/stable-queue.git;a=summary
The filename of the patch is:
cpufreq-intel_pstate-drop-redundant-intel_pstate_get.patch
and it can be found in the queue-5.15 subdirectory.
If you, or anyone else, feels it should not be added to the stable tree,
please let <stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> know about it.
commit 2af81d33442247fee488492a78d15042d9e78bb1
Author: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri Dec 10 17:12:18 2021 +0100
cpufreq: intel_pstate: Drop redundant intel_pstate_get_hwp_cap() call
[ Upstream commit 458b03f81afbb27143c45d47c2d8f418b2ba2407 ]
It is not necessary to call intel_pstate_get_hwp_cap() from
intel_pstate_update_perf_limits(), because it gets called from
intel_pstate_verify_cpu_policy() which is either invoked directly
right before intel_pstate_update_perf_limits(), in
intel_cpufreq_verify_policy() in the passive mode, or called
from driver callbacks in a sequence that causes it to be followed
by an immediate intel_pstate_update_perf_limits().
Namely, in the active mode intel_cpufreq_verify_policy() is called
by intel_pstate_verify_policy() which is the ->verify() callback
routine of intel_pstate and gets called by the cpufreq core right
before intel_pstate_set_policy(), which is the driver's ->setoplicy()
callback routine, where intel_pstate_update_perf_limits() is called.
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@xxxxxxxxx>
Stable-dep-of: 192cdb1c907f ("cpufreq: intel_pstate: Refine computation of P-state for given frequency")
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@xxxxxxxxxx>
diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/intel_pstate.c b/drivers/cpufreq/intel_pstate.c
index 736cb2cfcbb0..f2a94afb6eec 100644
--- a/drivers/cpufreq/intel_pstate.c
+++ b/drivers/cpufreq/intel_pstate.c
@@ -2332,18 +2332,14 @@ static void intel_pstate_update_perf_limits(struct cpudata *cpu,
* HWP needs some special consideration, because HWP_REQUEST uses
* abstract values to represent performance rather than pure ratios.
*/
- if (hwp_active) {
- intel_pstate_get_hwp_cap(cpu);
-
- if (cpu->pstate.scaling != perf_ctl_scaling) {
- int scaling = cpu->pstate.scaling;
- int freq;
-
- freq = max_policy_perf * perf_ctl_scaling;
- max_policy_perf = DIV_ROUND_UP(freq, scaling);
- freq = min_policy_perf * perf_ctl_scaling;
- min_policy_perf = DIV_ROUND_UP(freq, scaling);
- }
+ if (hwp_active && cpu->pstate.scaling != perf_ctl_scaling) {
+ int scaling = cpu->pstate.scaling;
+ int freq;
+
+ freq = max_policy_perf * perf_ctl_scaling;
+ max_policy_perf = DIV_ROUND_UP(freq, scaling);
+ freq = min_policy_perf * perf_ctl_scaling;
+ min_policy_perf = DIV_ROUND_UP(freq, scaling);
}
pr_debug("cpu:%d min_policy_perf:%d max_policy_perf:%d\n",
