This is a note to let you know that I've just added the patch titled
cpufreq: governor: Ensure sufficiently large sampling intervals
to the 4.14-stable tree which can be found at: http://www.kernel.org/git/?p=linux/kernel/git/stable/stable-queue.git%3Ba=su...
The filename of the patch is: cpufreq-governor-ensure-sufficiently-large-sampling-intervals.patch and it can be found in the queue-4.14 subdirectory.
If you, or anyone else, feels it should not be added to the stable tree, please let stable@vger.kernel.org know about it.
From 56026645e2b6f11ede34a5e6ab69d3eb56f9c8fc Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2017 02:15:32 +0100 Subject: cpufreq: governor: Ensure sufficiently large sampling intervals
From: Rafael J. Wysocki rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com
commit 56026645e2b6f11ede34a5e6ab69d3eb56f9c8fc upstream.
After commit aa7519af450d (cpufreq: Use transition_delay_us for legacy governors as well) the sampling_rate field of struct dbs_data may be less than the tick period which causes dbs_update() to produce incorrect results, so make the code ensure that the value of that field will always be sufficiently large.
Fixes: aa7519af450d (cpufreq: Use transition_delay_us for legacy governors as well) Reported-by: Andy Tang andy.tang@nxp.com Reported-by: Doug Smythies dsmythies@telus.net Tested-by: Andy Tang andy.tang@nxp.com Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com Acked-by: Viresh Kumar viresh.kumar@linaro.org Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman gregkh@linuxfoundation.org
--- drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_governor.c | 19 ++++++++++++++++--- 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
--- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_governor.c +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_governor.c @@ -22,6 +22,8 @@
#include "cpufreq_governor.h"
+#define CPUFREQ_DBS_MIN_SAMPLING_INTERVAL (2 * TICK_NSEC / NSEC_PER_USEC) + static DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct cpu_dbs_info, cpu_dbs);
static DEFINE_MUTEX(gov_dbs_data_mutex); @@ -47,11 +49,15 @@ ssize_t store_sampling_rate(struct gov_a { struct dbs_data *dbs_data = to_dbs_data(attr_set); struct policy_dbs_info *policy_dbs; + unsigned int sampling_interval; int ret; - ret = sscanf(buf, "%u", &dbs_data->sampling_rate); - if (ret != 1) + + ret = sscanf(buf, "%u", &sampling_interval); + if (ret != 1 || sampling_interval < CPUFREQ_DBS_MIN_SAMPLING_INTERVAL) return -EINVAL;
+ dbs_data->sampling_rate = sampling_interval; + /* * We are operating under dbs_data->mutex and so the list and its * entries can't be freed concurrently. @@ -430,7 +436,14 @@ int cpufreq_dbs_governor_init(struct cpu if (ret) goto free_policy_dbs_info;
- dbs_data->sampling_rate = cpufreq_policy_transition_delay_us(policy); + /* + * The sampling interval should not be less than the transition latency + * of the CPU and it also cannot be too small for dbs_update() to work + * correctly. + */ + dbs_data->sampling_rate = max_t(unsigned int, + CPUFREQ_DBS_MIN_SAMPLING_INTERVAL, + cpufreq_policy_transition_delay_us(policy));
if (!have_governor_per_policy()) gov->gdbs_data = dbs_data;
Patches currently in stable-queue which might be from rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com are
queue-4.14/cpufreq-governor-ensure-sufficiently-large-sampling-intervals.patch