4.17-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know.
------------------
From: Chen Yu yu.c.chen@intel.com
commit 7592019634f8473f0b0973ce79297183077bdbc2 upstream.
According to current code implementation, detecting the long idle period is done by checking if the interval between two adjacent utilization update handlers is long enough. Although this mechanism can detect if the idle period is long enough (no utilization hooks invoked during idle period), it might not cover a corner case: if the task has occupied the CPU for too long which causes no context switches during that period, then no utilization handler will be launched until this high prio task is scheduled out. As a result, the idle_periods field might be calculated incorrectly because it regards the 100% load as 0% and makes the conservative governor who uses this field confusing.
Change the detection to compare the idle_time with sampling_rate directly.
Reported-by: Artem S. Tashkinov t.artem@mailcity.com Signed-off-by: Chen Yu yu.c.chen@intel.com Acked-by: Viresh Kumar viresh.kumar@linaro.org Cc: All applicable stable@vger.kernel.org Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman gregkh@linuxfoundation.org
--- drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_governor.c | 12 +++++------- 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
--- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_governor.c +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_governor.c @@ -165,7 +165,7 @@ unsigned int dbs_update(struct cpufreq_p * calls, so the previous load value can be used then. */ load = j_cdbs->prev_load; - } else if (unlikely(time_elapsed > 2 * sampling_rate && + } else if (unlikely((int)idle_time > 2 * sampling_rate && j_cdbs->prev_load)) { /* * If the CPU had gone completely idle and a task has @@ -185,10 +185,8 @@ unsigned int dbs_update(struct cpufreq_p * clear prev_load to guarantee that the load will be * computed again next time. * - * Detecting this situation is easy: the governor's - * utilization update handler would not have run during - * CPU-idle periods. Hence, an unusually large - * 'time_elapsed' (as compared to the sampling rate) + * Detecting this situation is easy: an unusually large + * 'idle_time' (as compared to the sampling rate) * indicates this scenario. */ load = j_cdbs->prev_load; @@ -217,8 +215,8 @@ unsigned int dbs_update(struct cpufreq_p j_cdbs->prev_load = load; }
- if (time_elapsed > 2 * sampling_rate) { - unsigned int periods = time_elapsed / sampling_rate; + if (unlikely((int)idle_time > 2 * sampling_rate)) { + unsigned int periods = idle_time / sampling_rate;
if (periods < idle_periods) idle_periods = periods;