From: Jie Zhan <zhanjie9@hisilicon.com> mainline inclusion from mainline-v6.14-rc3 commit 3698dd6b139dc37b35a9ad83d9330c1f99666c02 category: bugfix bugzilla: https://gitee.com/openeuler/kernel/issues/IC29P3 CVE: NA Reference: https://web.git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commi... --------------------------------------------------------------------- We observed an issue that the CPU frequency can't raise up with a 100% CPU load when NOHZ is off and the 'conservative' governor is selected. 'idle_time' can be negative if it's obtained from get_cpu_idle_time_jiffy() when NOHZ is off. This was found and explained in commit 9485e4ca0b48 ("cpufreq: governor: Fix handling of special cases in dbs_update()"). However, commit 7592019634f8 ("cpufreq: governors: Fix long idle detection logic in load calculation") introduced a comparison between 'idle_time' and 'samling_rate' to detect a long idle interval. While 'idle_time' is converted to int before comparison, it's actually promoted to unsigned again when compared with an unsigned 'sampling_rate'. Hence, this leads to wrong idle interval detection when it's in fact 100% busy and sets policy_dbs->idle_periods to a very large value. 'conservative' adjusts the frequency to minimum because of the large 'idle_periods', such that the frequency can't raise up. 'Ondemand' doesn't use policy_dbs->idle_periods so it fortunately avoids the issue. Correct negative 'idle_time' to 0 before any use of it in dbs_update(). Fixes: 7592019634f8 ("cpufreq: governors: Fix long idle detection logic in load calculation") Signed-off-by: Jie Zhan <zhanjie9@hisilicon.com> Reviewed-by: Chen Yu <yu.c.chen@intel.com> Link: https://patch.msgid.link/20250213035510.2402076-1-zhanjie9@hisilicon.com Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com> Signed-off-by: Xinghai Cen <cenxinghai@h-partners.com> --- drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_governor.c | 45 +++++++++++++++--------------- 1 file changed, 23 insertions(+), 22 deletions(-) diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_governor.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_governor.c index af44ee6a6430..1a7fcaf39cc9 100644 --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_governor.c +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_governor.c @@ -145,7 +145,23 @@ unsigned int dbs_update(struct cpufreq_policy *policy) time_elapsed = update_time - j_cdbs->prev_update_time; j_cdbs->prev_update_time = update_time; - idle_time = cur_idle_time - j_cdbs->prev_cpu_idle; + /* + * cur_idle_time could be smaller than j_cdbs->prev_cpu_idle if + * it's obtained from get_cpu_idle_time_jiffy() when NOHZ is + * off, where idle_time is calculated by the difference between + * time elapsed in jiffies and "busy time" obtained from CPU + * statistics. If a CPU is 100% busy, the time elapsed and busy + * time should grow with the same amount in two consecutive + * samples, but in practice there could be a tiny difference, + * making the accumulated idle time decrease sometimes. Hence, + * in this case, idle_time should be regarded as 0 in order to + * make the further process correct. + */ + if (cur_idle_time > j_cdbs->prev_cpu_idle) + idle_time = cur_idle_time - j_cdbs->prev_cpu_idle; + else + idle_time = 0; + j_cdbs->prev_cpu_idle = cur_idle_time; if (ignore_nice) { @@ -162,7 +178,7 @@ unsigned int dbs_update(struct cpufreq_policy *policy) * calls, so the previous load value can be used then. */ load = j_cdbs->prev_load; - } else if (unlikely((int)idle_time > 2 * sampling_rate && + } else if (unlikely(idle_time > 2 * sampling_rate && j_cdbs->prev_load)) { /* * If the CPU had gone completely idle and a task has @@ -189,30 +205,15 @@ unsigned int dbs_update(struct cpufreq_policy *policy) load = j_cdbs->prev_load; j_cdbs->prev_load = 0; } else { - if (time_elapsed >= idle_time) { + if (time_elapsed > idle_time) load = 100 * (time_elapsed - idle_time) / time_elapsed; - } else { - /* - * That can happen if idle_time is returned by - * get_cpu_idle_time_jiffy(). In that case - * idle_time is roughly equal to the difference - * between time_elapsed and "busy time" obtained - * from CPU statistics. Then, the "busy time" - * can end up being greater than time_elapsed - * (for example, if jiffies_64 and the CPU - * statistics are updated by different CPUs), - * so idle_time may in fact be negative. That - * means, though, that the CPU was busy all - * the time (on the rough average) during the - * last sampling interval and 100 can be - * returned as the load. - */ - load = (int)idle_time < 0 ? 100 : 0; - } + else + load = 0; + j_cdbs->prev_load = load; } - if (unlikely((int)idle_time > 2 * sampling_rate)) { + if (unlikely(idle_time > 2 * sampling_rate)) { unsigned int periods = idle_time / sampling_rate; if (periods < idle_periods) -- 2.33.0