Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Received-SPF: Pass (protection.outlook.com: domain of nvidia.com designates
 216.228.117.160 as permitted sender) receiver=protection.outlook.com;
 client-ip=216.228.117.160; helo=mail.nvidia.com; pr=C
Message-ID: <05feec0c-c94a-a0e7-3636-1927f6621cb9@nvidia.com>
Date:   Tue, 18 Apr 2023 19:01:44 +0530
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/102.9.0
Subject: Re: [Patch 1/6] cpufreq: use correct unit when verify cur freq
Content-Language: en-US
To:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>
CC:     <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>, <ionela.voinescu@arm.com>,
        <mark.rutland@arm.com>, <sudeep.holla@arm.com>,
        <lpieralisi@kernel.org>, <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
        <will@kernel.org>, <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>,
        <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
        <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-tegra@vger.kernel.org>,
        <treding@nvidia.com>, <jonathanh@nvidia.com>, <vsethi@nvidia.com>,
        <sdonthineni@nvidia.com>, <sanjayc@nvidia.com>,
        <ksitaraman@nvidia.com>, <bbasu@nvidia.com>,
        Sumit Gupta <sumitg@nvidia.com>
References: <20230418113459.12860-1-sumitg@nvidia.com>
 <20230418113459.12860-2-sumitg@nvidia.com>
 <CAJZ5v0iMcVZMd3YpEC++BZzCwOM2ocYQuK98tm9gQq0fjO41gg@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Sumit Gupta <sumitg@nvidia.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAJZ5v0iMcVZMd3YpEC++BZzCwOM2ocYQuK98tm9gQq0fjO41gg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalArrivalTime: 18 Apr 2023 13:32:02.7521
 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: aa01709c-82ee-44b4-101d-08db40114b8b
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Id: 43083d15-7273-40c1-b7db-39efd9ccc17a
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalAttributedTenantConnectingIp: TenantId=43083d15-7273-40c1-b7db-39efd9ccc17a;Ip=[216.228.117.160];Helo=[mail.nvidia.com]
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthSource: DS1PEPF0000E640.namprd02.prod.outlook.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthAs: Anonymous
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-FromEntityHeader: HybridOnPrem
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: DM4PR12MB6471
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,
        DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,FORGED_SPF_HELO,
        NICE_REPLY_A,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2,SPF_HELO_PASS,
        SPF_NONE,T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=ham
        autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on
        lindbergh.monkeyblade.net
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org


On 18/04/23 18:27, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> External email: Use caution opening links or attachments
> 
> 
> On Tue, Apr 18, 2023 at 1:35 PM Sumit Gupta <sumitg@nvidia.com> wrote:
>>
>> From: Sanjay Chandrashekara <sanjayc@nvidia.com>
>>
>> cpufreq_verify_current_freq checks if the frequency returned by
>> the hardware has a slight delta with the valid frequency value
>> last set and returns "policy->cur" if the delta is within "1 MHz".
>> In the comparison, "policy->cur" is in "kHz" but it's compared
>> against HZ_PER_MHZ. So, the comparison range becomes "1 GHz".
>> Fix this by comparing against KHZ_PER_MHZ instead of HZ_PER_MHZ.
>>
>> Fixes: f55ae08c8987 ("cpufreq: Avoid unnecessary frequency updates due to mismatch")
>> Signed-off-by: Sanjay Chandrashekara <sanjayc@nvidia.com>
>> [ sumit gupta: Commit message update ]
>> Signed-off-by: Sumit Gupta <sumitg@nvidia.com>
>> ---
>>   drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c | 2 +-
>>   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
>> index 8b0509f89f1b..6b52ebe5a890 100644
>> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
>> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
>> @@ -1732,7 +1732,7 @@ static unsigned int cpufreq_verify_current_freq(struct cpufreq_policy *policy, b
>>                   * MHz. In such cases it is better to avoid getting into
>>                   * unnecessary frequency updates.
>>                   */
>> -               if (abs(policy->cur - new_freq) < HZ_PER_MHZ)
>> +               if (abs(policy->cur - new_freq) < KHZ_PER_MHZ)
>>                          return policy->cur;
>>
>>                  cpufreq_out_of_sync(policy, new_freq);
>> --
> 
> So this is a fix that can be applied separately from the rest of the
> series, isn't it?

Yes.

Thank you,
Sumit Gupta