Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: scmi: Fix frequency invariance in slow path

From: Quentin Perret
Date: Wed Jan 09 2019 - 05:59:10 EST


On Wednesday 09 Jan 2019 at 11:56:06 (+0100), Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 9, 2019 11:45:11 AM CET Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > On 09-01-19, 10:42, Quentin Perret wrote:
> > > The scmi-cpufreq driver calls the arch_set_freq_scale() callback on
> > > frequency changes to provide scale-invariant load-tracking signals to
> > > the scheduler. However, in the slow path, it does so while specifying
> > > the current and max frequencies in different units, hence resulting in a
> > > broken freq_scale factor.
> > >
> > > Fix this by passing all frequencies in KHz, as stored in the CPUFreq
> > > frequency table.
> > >
> > > Fixes: 99d6bdf33877 ("cpufreq: add support for CPU DVFS based on SCMI
> > > message protocol")
> > > Signed-off-by: Quentin Perret <quentin.perret@xxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > > drivers/cpufreq/scmi-cpufreq.c | 4 ++--
> > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/scmi-cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/scmi-cpufreq.c
> > > index 50b1551ba894..3f0693439486 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/cpufreq/scmi-cpufreq.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/scmi-cpufreq.c
> > > @@ -52,9 +52,9 @@ scmi_cpufreq_set_target(struct cpufreq_policy *policy, unsigned int index)
> > > int ret;
> > > struct scmi_data *priv = policy->driver_data;
> > > struct scmi_perf_ops *perf_ops = handle->perf_ops;
> > > - u64 freq = policy->freq_table[index].frequency * 1000;
> > > + u64 freq = policy->freq_table[index].frequency;
> > >
> > > - ret = perf_ops->freq_set(handle, priv->domain_id, freq, false);
> > > + ret = perf_ops->freq_set(handle, priv->domain_id, freq * 1000, false);
> > > if (!ret)
> > > arch_set_freq_scale(policy->related_cpus, freq,
> > > policy->cpuinfo.max_freq);
> >
> > Acked-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> This would be stable-candidate I guess?

I think so yes. I was hoping the 'Fixes:' tag would be enough ? Or do I
still need to CC stable too ?

Thanks,
Quentin