Hi Rafael, Thanks for reviewing the change. On 2/23/2024 12:52 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Thu, Feb 22, 2024 at 9:35 AM Shivnandan Kumar <quic_kshivnan@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:Resolving a frequency to an efficient one should not transgress policy->max (which can be set for thermal reason) and policy->min. Currently there is possibility where scaling_cur_freq can exceed scaling_max_freq when scaling_max_freq is inefficient frequency. Add additional check to ensure that resolving a frequency will respect policy->min/max. Fixes: 1f39fa0dccff ("cpufreq: Introducing CPUFREQ_RELATION_E") Signed-off-by: Shivnandan Kumar <quic_kshivnan@xxxxxxxxxxx> --- include/linux/cpufreq.h | 18 +++++++++++++++++- 1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/include/linux/cpufreq.h b/include/linux/cpufreq.h index afda5f24d3dd..42d98b576a36 100644 --- a/include/linux/cpufreq.h +++ b/include/linux/cpufreq.h @@ -1021,6 +1021,19 @@ static inline int cpufreq_table_find_index_c(struct cpufreq_policy *policy, efficiencies); } +static inline bool cpufreq_table_index_is_in_limits(struct cpufreq_policy *policy, + int idx)This is not really about the index only, but about the frequency at that index too, so I'd call the function differently.
ACK
+{ + unsigned int freq; + + if (idx < 0) + return false; + + freq = policy->freq_table[idx].frequency; + + return (freq == clamp_val(freq, policy->min, policy->max));Redundant outer parens.
ACK
+} + static inline int cpufreq_frequency_table_target(struct cpufreq_policy *policy, unsigned int target_freq, unsigned int relation) @@ -1054,7 +1067,10 @@ static inline int cpufreq_frequency_table_target(struct cpufreq_policy *policy, return 0; } - if (idx < 0 && efficiencies) { + /* + * Limit frequency index to honor policy->min/max + */This comment need not be multi-line.
ACK I will make the changes in next patch set. Thanks Shivnandan
+ if (!cpufreq_table_index_is_in_limits(policy, idx) && efficiencies) { efficiencies = false; goto retry; } --Thanks!
