Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 9 Jan 2019 11:07:52 +0000 | From | Quentin Perret <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: scmi: Fix frequency invariance in slow path |
| |
On Wednesday 09 Jan 2019 at 12:03:49 (+0100), Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Wednesday, January 9, 2019 11:59:05 AM CET Quentin Perret wrote: > > 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@arm.com> > > > > > --- > > > > > 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@linaro.org> > > > > > > This would be stable-candidate I guess? > > > > I think so yes. I was hoping the 'Fixes:' tag would be enough ? > > It doesn't cause -stable to pick up commits automatically if that's > what you're asking about. > > > Or do I still need to CC stable too ? > > No, you don't need to (and should not) CC -stable yourself. > > You can, however, add a Cc: <stable..> tag to the patch which helps > maintainers a bit.
OK, will do from now on.
Thanks ! Quentin
| |