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.
Cc: <stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Fixes: 1f39fa0dccff ("cpufreq: Introducing CPUFREQ_RELATION_E")
Signed-off-by: Shivnandan Kumar <quic_kshivnan@xxxxxxxxxxx>
--
Changes in v2:
-rename function name from cpufreq_table_index_is_in_limits to cpufreq_is_in_limits
-remove redundant outer parenthesis in return statement
-Make comment single line
--
---
include/linux/cpufreq.h | 16 +++++++++++++++-
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/include/linux/cpufreq.h b/include/linux/cpufreq.h
index afda5f24d3dd..7741244dee6e 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_is_in_limits(struct cpufreq_policy *policy,
+ int idx)
+{
+ unsigned int freq;
+
+ if (idx < 0)
+ return false;
+
+ freq = policy->freq_table[idx].frequency;
+
+ return freq == clamp_val(freq, policy->min, policy->max);
+}
+
static inline int cpufreq_frequency_table_target(struct cpufreq_policy *policy,
unsigned int target_freq,
unsigned int relation)
@@ -1054,7 +1067,8 @@ 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 */
+ if (!cpufreq_is_in_limits(policy, idx) && efficiencies) {
efficiencies = false;
goto retry;
}
--
2.25.1
