From: Shawn Guo <shawnguo2@yeah.net>
To: Qais Yousef <qyousef@layalina.io>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>,
Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>,
linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Shawn Guo <shawnguo@kernel.org>,
stable@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: cap the default transition delay at 10 ms
Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2025 15:29:05 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <aMfAQXE4sRjru9I_@dragon> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20250914174326.i7nqmrzjtjq7kpqm@airbuntu>
On Sun, Sep 14, 2025 at 06:43:26PM +0100, Qais Yousef wrote:
> > > Why do you want to address the issue in the cpufreq core instead of
> > > doing that in the cpufreq-dt driver?
> >
> > My intuition was to fix the regression at where the regression was
> > introduced by recovering the code behavior.
>
> Isn't the right fix here is at the driver level still? We can only give drivers
> what they ask for. If they ask for something wrong and result in something
> wrong, it is still their fault, no?
I'm not sure. The cpufreq-dt driver is following suggestion to use
CPUFREQ_ETERNAL, which has the implication that core will figure out
a reasonable default value for platforms where the latency is unknown.
And that was exactly the situation before the regression. How does it
become the fault of cpufreq-dt driver?
> Alternatively maybe we can add special handling for CPUFREQ_ETERNAL value,
> though I'd suggest to return 1ms (similar to the case of value being 0). Maybe
> we can redefine CPUFREQ_ETERNAL to be 0, but not sure if this can have side
> effects.
Changing CPUFREQ_ETERNAL to 0 looks so risky to me. What about adding
an explicit check for CPUFREQ_ETERNAL?
---8<---
diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
index fc7eace8b65b..053f3a0288bc 100644
--- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
+++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
@@ -549,11 +549,15 @@ unsigned int cpufreq_policy_transition_delay_us(struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
if (policy->transition_delay_us)
return policy->transition_delay_us;
+ if (policy->cpuinfo.transition_latency == CPUFREQ_ETERNAL)
+ goto default_delay;
+
latency = policy->cpuinfo.transition_latency / NSEC_PER_USEC;
if (latency)
/* Give a 50% breathing room between updates */
return latency + (latency >> 1);
+default_delay:
return USEC_PER_MSEC;
}
EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(cpufreq_policy_transition_delay_us);
--->8---
Shawn
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-09-15 7:30 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-09-10 6:53 [PATCH] cpufreq: cap the default transition delay at 10 ms Shawn Guo
2025-09-10 7:11 ` Shawn Guo
2025-09-12 10:41 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2025-09-12 13:07 ` Shawn Guo
2025-09-14 17:43 ` Qais Yousef
2025-09-15 7:29 ` Shawn Guo [this message]
2025-09-15 10:02 ` Qais Yousef
2025-09-15 12:20 ` Shawn Guo
2025-09-15 13:18 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2025-09-16 1:52 ` Shawn Guo
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=aMfAQXE4sRjru9I_@dragon \
--to=shawnguo2@yeah.net \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=qyousef@layalina.io \
--cc=rafael@kernel.org \
--cc=shawnguo@kernel.org \
--cc=stable@vger.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