6.6-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know.
------------------
From: Shivnandan Kumar quic_kshivnan@quicinc.com
[ Upstream commit d394abcb12bb1a6f309c1221fdb8e73594ecf1b4 ]
Resolving a frequency to an efficient one should not transgress policy->max (which can be set for thermal reason) and policy->min.
Currently, there is possibility where scaling_cur_freq can exceed scaling_max_freq when scaling_max_freq is an inefficient frequency.
Add a check to ensure that resolving a frequency will respect policy->min/max.
Cc: All applicable stable@vger.kernel.org Fixes: 1f39fa0dccff ("cpufreq: Introducing CPUFREQ_RELATION_E") Signed-off-by: Shivnandan Kumar quic_kshivnan@quicinc.com [ rjw: Whitespace adjustment, changelog edits ] Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin sashal@kernel.org --- include/linux/cpufreq.h | 15 ++++++++++++++- 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/include/linux/cpufreq.h b/include/linux/cpufreq.h index 71d186d6933a5..3a4cefb25ba61 100644 --- a/include/linux/cpufreq.h +++ b/include/linux/cpufreq.h @@ -1021,6 +1021,18 @@ static inline int cpufreq_table_find_index_c(struct cpufreq_policy *policy, efficiencies); }
+static inline bool cpufreq_is_in_limits(struct cpufreq_policy *policy, int idx) +{ + unsigned int freq; + + if (idx < 0) + return false; + + freq = policy->freq_table[idx].frequency; + + return freq == clamp_val(freq, policy->min, policy->max); +} + static inline int cpufreq_frequency_table_target(struct cpufreq_policy *policy, unsigned int target_freq, unsigned int relation) @@ -1054,7 +1066,8 @@ static inline int cpufreq_frequency_table_target(struct cpufreq_policy *policy, return 0; }
- if (idx < 0 && efficiencies) { + /* Limit frequency index to honor policy->min/max */ + if (!cpufreq_is_in_limits(policy, idx) && efficiencies) { efficiencies = false; goto retry; }