Re: [PATCH] cpufreq/amd-pstate: Fix per-policy boost flag incorrect when fail

[Mario Limonciello]

On 1/7/2025 19:31, zhenglifeng (A) wrote:
> On 2025/1/4 0:56, Mario Limonciello wrote:
>
> > On 1/3/2025 01:41, Lifeng Zheng wrote:
> > > Commit c8c68c38b56f ("cpufreq: amd-pstate: initialize core precision
> > > boost state") sets per-policy boost flag to false when boost fail.
> > > However, this boost flag will be set to reverse value in
> > > store_local_boost() and cpufreq_boost_trigger_state() in cpufreq.c. This
> > > will cause the per-policy boost flag set to true when fail to set boost.
> > > Remove the extra assignment in amd_pstate_set_boost() and keep all
> > > operations on per-policy boost flag outside of set_boost() to fix this
> > > problem.
> > >
> > > Fixes: c8c68c38b56f ("cpufreq: amd-pstate: initialize core precision boost state")
> > > Signed-off-by: Lifeng Zheng <zhenglifeng1@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> >
> > Hi There,
> >
> > Thanks for the patch.  Unfortunately, it doesn't apply to the current linux-next branch at https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/superm1/linux.git
>
> Hello Mario,
>
> When I try to build on this branch, I got an error:
>
> arch/x86/kernel/relocate_kernel_64.o: In function `virtual_mapped':
> .../linux/arch/x86/kernel/relocate_kernel_64.S:249: undefined reference to `saved_context_gdt_desc'
> scripts/Makefile.vmlinux:77: recipe for target 'vmlinux' failed
>
> This error occurs when CONFIG_KEXEC_JUMP=y, and doesn't occur when build on
> torvalds master branch with same config. Please check if there is any
> problem whith this branch.
Hi,

It's because the branch is based on an earlier 6.13-rc.

Two ideas that can help you:

1) You can pull this patch manually on top of it to avoid that issue.
https://git.kernel.org/torvalds/c/aeb68937614f4

2) You can manually rebase the branch on newer 6.13-rc locally to make 
your commit.  That commit that fixed it landed in 6.13-rc3, so rc3 or 
later would be fine.

> > Although the issue you identified is still valid, there have been other contextual changes in the function [1].  Can you rebase on that branch, test it again and send a v2?
> >
> > [1] https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/superm1/linux.git/tree/drivers/cpufreq/amd-pstate.c?h=linux-next#n750
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> > >    drivers/cpufreq/amd-pstate.c | 1 -
> > >    1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/amd-pstate.c b/drivers/cpufreq/amd-pstate.c
> > > index 66e5dfc711c0..4ce923788f3a 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/cpufreq/amd-pstate.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/amd-pstate.c
> > > @@ -730,7 +730,6 @@ static int amd_pstate_set_boost(struct cpufreq_policy *policy, int state)
> > >        mutex_lock(&amd_pstate_driver_lock);
> > >        ret = amd_pstate_cpu_boost_update(policy, state);
> > >        WRITE_ONCE(cpudata->boost_state, !ret ? state : false);
> > > -    policy->boost_enabled = !ret ? state : false;
> > >        refresh_frequency_limits(policy);
> > >        mutex_unlock(&amd_pstate_driver_lock);
> > >