Re: [PATCH v3] cpufreq/cppc: Remove the desired_perf compare when set target

[Viresh Kumar]

Ionela, Beata,

On 30-05-24, 19:08, Riwen Lu wrote:
> From: Riwen Lu <luriwen@xxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> There is a case that desired_perf is exactly the same with the old perf,
> but the actual current freq is not.
> 
> This happened in S3 while the cpufreq governor is set to powersave.
> During cpufreq resume process, the booting CPU's new_freq obtained via
> .get() is the highest frequency, while the policy->cur and
> cpu->perf_ctrls.desired_perf are in the lowest level(powersave
> governor). Causing the warning: "CPU frequency out of sync:", and set
> policy->cur to new_freq. Then the governor->limits() calls
> cppc_cpufreq_set_target() to configures the CPU frequency and returns
> directly because the desired_perf converted from target_freq is the
> same with cpu->perf_ctrls.desired_perf and both are the lowest_perf.
> Since target_freq and policy->cur have been compared in
> __cpufreq_driver_target(), there's no need to compare desired_perf
> and cpu->perf_ctrls.desired_perf again in cppc_cpufreq_set_target()
> to ensure that the CPU frequency is properly configured.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Riwen Lu <luriwen@xxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> ---
> v1 -> v2:
>  - Update commit message and email.
> v2 -> v3:
>  - Update patch subject and commit message.
>  - Remove the desired_perf compare logic.
> ---
>  drivers/cpufreq/cppc_cpufreq.c | 3 ---
>  1 file changed, 3 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cppc_cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cppc_cpufreq.c
> index 15f1d41920a3..337cece61ab5 100644
> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cppc_cpufreq.c
> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cppc_cpufreq.c
> @@ -295,9 +295,6 @@ static int cppc_cpufreq_set_target(struct cpufreq_policy *policy,
>  	int ret = 0;
>  
>  	desired_perf = cppc_khz_to_perf(&cpu_data->perf_caps, target_freq);
> -	/* Return if it is exactly the same perf */
> -	if (desired_perf == cpu_data->perf_ctrls.desired_perf)
> -		return ret;
>  
>  	cpu_data->perf_ctrls.desired_perf = desired_perf;
>  	freqs.old = policy->cur;

Any objections to this change ?

-- 
viresh