Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: Documentation: fix freq_step description

[Pengjie Zhang <zhangpengjie2@huawei.com>]

On 5/30/2026 10:36 PM, Zhongqiu Han wrote:
> On 5/29/2026 7:11 PM, Pengjie Zhang wrote:
>> The conservative governor documentation incorrectly states that setting
>> freq_step to 0 will use the default 5% frequency step. In reality, since
>> the governor's initial implementation
>> commit b9170836d1aa ("[CPUFREQ] Conservative cpufreq governer"),
>> freq_step=0 has always caused the governor to skip frequency updates
>> entirely.
>
> Hi Pengjie,
>
> Thanks for the patch.
>
> The documentation fix looks correct: in the current code,
> cs_dbs_update() has an early goto out when freq_step == 0, which skips
> the call to get_freq_step() and all subsequent frequency change logic.
>
> However, the commit message's historical claim appears to be inaccurate.
> In the original implementation (b9170836d1aa), freq_step=0 had
> asymmetric behavior: frequency decreases were skipped (early return),
> but frequency increases still used the hardcoded 5% fallback (freq_step
> = 5 after the unlikely(freq_step == 0) check).
>
> If so, would it make sense to remove/update the historical claim to
> avoid the incorrect historical claim?
>
Thanks for the careful review.

Agreed. The correct commit for the symmetric freq_step=0 behavior
should be 8e677ce83bf4 ("[CPUFREQ] conservative: fixup governor to
function more like ondemand logic"), not b9170836d1aa.

I'll fix the commit message in v2.

On a related note, I have a quick question regarding code readability in
this area. Currently, the code uses the name "freq_step" for two different
concepts:

1. `cs_tuners->freq_step`: The tunable exposed via sysfs/documentation,
    which represents a percentage.
2. `freq_step = get_freq_step(...)`: The local variable representing the
    actual calculated frequency step (in kHz). The `if 
(unlikely(freq_step == 0))`
    check also applies to this absolute value.

Since mixing a percentage and an absolute kHz value under the same name
might be slightly confusing for readers, would it make sense to rename the
local variable (e.g., to `freq_step_khz`) to clearly distinguish the two?

Cheers,
     Pengjie

>>
>> Correct the documentation to reflect the actual behavior: freq_step=0
>> disables frequency changes by the governor entirely.
>>
>> Fixes: 2a0e49279850 ("cpufreq: User/admin documentation update and 
>> consolidation")
>> Signed-off-by: Pengjie Zhang <zhangpengjie2@huawei.com>
>> ---
>>   Documentation/admin-guide/pm/cpufreq.rst | 4 ++--
>>   1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/Documentation/admin-guide/pm/cpufreq.rst 
>> b/Documentation/admin-guide/pm/cpufreq.rst
>> index dbe6d23a5d67..98c724d49047 100644
>> --- a/Documentation/admin-guide/pm/cpufreq.rst
>> +++ b/Documentation/admin-guide/pm/cpufreq.rst
>> @@ -586,8 +586,8 @@ This governor exposes the following tunables:
>>       100 (5 by default).
>>         This is how much the frequency is allowed to change in one 
>> go.  Setting
>> -    it to 0 will cause the default frequency step (5 percent) to be 
>> used
>> -    and setting it to 100 effectively causes the governor to 
>> periodically
>> +    it to 0 disables frequency changes by the governor entirely and 
>> setting
>> +    it to 100 effectively causes the governor to periodically
>>       switch the frequency between the ``scaling_min_freq`` and
>>       ``scaling_max_freq`` policy limits.
>
>