From: Zhongqiu Han <zhongqiu.han@oss.qualcomm.com>
To: lirongqing <lirongqing@baidu.com>,
"Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>,
Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>,
linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc: zhongqiu.han@oss.qualcomm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] cpufreq: acpi-cpufreq: fix P-state index mismatch in extract_io()
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2026 21:33:59 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <a647d4a0-d713-4e73-8b16-b73dd3b35ce4@oss.qualcomm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260813090145.2450-2-lirongqing@baidu.com>
On 8/13/2026 5:01 PM, lirongqing wrote:
> From: Li RongQing <lirongqing@baidu.com>
>
> When policy->freq_table is built in acpi_cpufreq_cpu_init(), entries
> with duplicate frequencies are skipped. The original P-state index for
> each remaining entry is stored in freq_table[].driver_data, so the index
> space of freq_table no longer matches perf->states[].
>
> extract_io() walks perf->states[] with index i and uses the same i to
> index policy->freq_table[i]. This causes two problems when duplicate
> frequencies exist:
>
> - Returning the frequency of the wrong P-state
> - Returning 0 from a zeroed tail entry, or even CPUFREQ_TABLE_END
> (~1u) reported as 0xfffffffe kHz
AFAICT, It may be worth expanding the changelog to cover the
consequences described below , particularly the resulting divergence
between the hardware state and the cpufreq core's view of the current
frequency:
Furthermore, extract_io() is only reachable on ACPI_ADR_SPACE_SYSTEM_IO
platforms, where cpufreq_driver->get is not installed, so its only
caller in practice is check_freqs(), i.e. only when the
acpi_pstate_strict module parameter is set.
There, the mismatched lookup makes the frequency comparison fail even
though drv_write() has already switched the hardware to the requested
P-state. So check_freqs() sleeps through all 100 iterations - at least
~1 ms of usleep_range() plus 100 cross-CPU calls and I/O port reads, all
with policy->rwsem held - and ->target_index() returns -EAGAIN. perf
->state is therefore left at its previous value while the hardware sits
at the new one.
The core then restores policy->cur to the old frequency, and
because __cpufreq_driver_target() returns early when the requested
frequency equals policy->cur, the driver is not called again for it - so
the control register is not rewritten and the CPU is left running at a
frequency the core does not know about.
>
> Fix it by walking policy->freq_table with cpufreq_for_each_entry() and
> using perf->states[pos->driver_data].status, aligning with extract_msr().
>
> Fixes: 8cee1eed8e78 ("cpufreq: ACPI: Remove freq_table from acpi_cpufreq_data")
The real tag should be fe27cb358835 ("[CPUFREQ][2/8] acpi:
reorganize code to make MSR support addition easier")
That commit added both the entry-skipping loop with the
freq_table[].index (now .driver_data) back-pointer, which is what makes
the two indices diverge, and the faulty lookup itself -- back then in a
function called extract_freq(). dde9f7ba60ad ("[CPUFREQ][3/8] acpi
cpufreq: Pull in MSR based transition support") merely renamed it to
extract_io().
> Signed-off-by: Li RongQing <lirongqing@baidu.com>
> ---
> drivers/cpufreq/acpi-cpufreq.c | 9 ++++-----
> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/acpi-cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/acpi-cpufreq.c
> index 21639d9..1abe9ab 100644
> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/acpi-cpufreq.c
> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/acpi-cpufreq.c
> @@ -197,14 +197,13 @@ static unsigned extract_io(struct cpufreq_policy *policy, u32 value)
> {
> struct acpi_cpufreq_data *data = policy->driver_data;
> struct acpi_processor_performance *perf;
> - int i;
> + struct cpufreq_frequency_table *pos;
>
> perf = to_perf_data(data);
>
> - for (i = 0; i < perf->state_count; i++) {
> - if (value == perf->states[i].status)
> - return policy->freq_table[i].frequency;
> - }
> + cpufreq_for_each_entry(pos, policy->freq_table)
> + if (value == perf->states[pos->driver_data].status)
> + return pos->frequency;
> return 0;
> }
>
--
Thx and BRs,
Zhongqiu Han
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-08-17 13:34 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-08-13 9:01 [PATCH v2 0/2] cpufreq: acpi-cpufreq: fix P-state index mismatch in freq lookups lirongqing
2026-08-13 9:01 ` [PATCH v2 1/2] cpufreq: acpi-cpufreq: fix P-state index mismatch in extract_io() lirongqing
2026-08-17 13:33 ` Zhongqiu Han [this message]
2026-08-18 6:46 ` 答复: [外部邮件] " Li,Rongqing
2026-08-18 8:38 ` Zhongqiu Han
2026-08-13 9:01 ` [PATCH v2 2/2] cpufreq: acpi-cpufreq: fix P-state index mismatch in get_cur_freq_on_cpu() lirongqing
2026-08-18 14:02 ` Zhongqiu Han
2026-08-19 11:21 ` 答复: [外部邮件] " Li,Rongqing
2026-08-17 12:45 ` [PATCH v2 0/2] cpufreq: acpi-cpufreq: fix P-state index mismatch in freq lookups Zhongqiu Han
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=a647d4a0-d713-4e73-8b16-b73dd3b35ce4@oss.qualcomm.com \
--to=zhongqiu.han@oss.qualcomm.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lirongqing@baidu.com \
--cc=rafael@kernel.org \
--cc=viresh.kumar@linaro.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox