diff mbox series

[1/2] firmware: arm_scmi: Fix frequency truncation by promoting multiplier to u64

Message ID 20231130204343.503076-1-sudeep.holla@arm.com
State Accepted
Commit 8e3c98d9187e09274fc000a7d1a77b070a42d259
Headers show
Series [1/2] firmware: arm_scmi: Fix frequency truncation by promoting multiplier to u64 | expand

Commit Message

Sudeep Holla Nov. 30, 2023, 8:43 p.m. UTC
Fix the frequency truncation for all values equal to or greater 4GHz by
updating the multiplier 'mult_factor' to u64 type. It is also possible
that the multiplier itself can be greater than or equal to 2^32. So we need
to also fix the equation computing the value of the multiplier.

Fixes: a9e3fbfaa0ff ("firmware: arm_scmi: add initial support for performance protocol")
Reported-by: Sibi Sankar <quic_sibis@quicinc.com>
Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20231129065748.19871-3-quic_sibis@quicinc.com/
Cc: Cristian Marussi <cristian.marussi@arm.com>
Signed-off-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
---
 drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/perf.c | 6 +++---
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

--
2.43.0

Comments

Sudeep Holla Dec. 1, 2023, 2:39 p.m. UTC | #1
On Thu, Nov 30, 2023 at 08:43:42PM +0000, Sudeep Holla wrote:
> Fix the frequency truncation for all values equal to or greater 4GHz by
> updating the multiplier 'mult_factor' to u64 type. It is also possible
> that the multiplier itself can be greater than or equal to 2^32. So we need
> to also fix the equation computing the value of the multiplier.
> 
> Fixes: a9e3fbfaa0ff ("firmware: arm_scmi: add initial support for performance protocol")
> Reported-by: Sibi Sankar <quic_sibis@quicinc.com>
> Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20231129065748.19871-3-quic_sibis@quicinc.com/
> Cc: Cristian Marussi <cristian.marussi@arm.com>
> Signed-off-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
> ---
>  drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/perf.c | 6 +++---
>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/perf.c b/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/perf.c
> index 81dd5c5e5533..8ce449922e55 100644
> --- a/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/perf.c
> +++ b/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/perf.c
> @@ -152,7 +152,7 @@ struct perf_dom_info {
>  	u32 opp_count;
>  	u32 sustained_freq_khz;
>  	u32 sustained_perf_level;
> -	u32 mult_factor;
> +	u64 mult_factor;

I have now changed this to unsigned long instead of u64 to fix the 32-bit
build failure[1].
Cristian Marussi Dec. 1, 2023, 4:17 p.m. UTC | #2
On Fri, Dec 01, 2023 at 02:39:35PM +0000, Sudeep Holla wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 30, 2023 at 08:43:42PM +0000, Sudeep Holla wrote:
> > Fix the frequency truncation for all values equal to or greater 4GHz by
> > updating the multiplier 'mult_factor' to u64 type. It is also possible
> > that the multiplier itself can be greater than or equal to 2^32. So we need
> > to also fix the equation computing the value of the multiplier.
> > 
> > Fixes: a9e3fbfaa0ff ("firmware: arm_scmi: add initial support for performance protocol")
> > Reported-by: Sibi Sankar <quic_sibis@quicinc.com>
> > Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20231129065748.19871-3-quic_sibis@quicinc.com/
> > Cc: Cristian Marussi <cristian.marussi@arm.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
> > ---
> >  drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/perf.c | 6 +++---
> >  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/perf.c b/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/perf.c
> > index 81dd5c5e5533..8ce449922e55 100644
> > --- a/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/perf.c
> > +++ b/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/perf.c
> > @@ -152,7 +152,7 @@ struct perf_dom_info {
> >  	u32 opp_count;
> >  	u32 sustained_freq_khz;
> >  	u32 sustained_perf_level;
> > -	u32 mult_factor;
> > +	u64 mult_factor;
> 
> I have now changed this to unsigned long instead of u64 to fix the 32-bit
> build failure[1].

Right, I was caught a few times too by this kind of failures on v7 :D

... but this 32bit issue makes me wonder what to do in such a case...

...I mean, on 32bit if the calculated freq oveflows, there is just
nothing we can do on v7 without overcomplicating the code...but I suppose
it is unplausible to have such high freq on a v7... as a palliative I can
only think of some sort of overflow check (only on v7) that could trigger
a warning ... but it is hardly worth the effort probably..

Thanks,
Cristian
Cristian Marussi Dec. 1, 2023, 4:23 p.m. UTC | #3
On Thu, Nov 30, 2023 at 08:43:43PM +0000, Sudeep Holla wrote:
> The multiplier is already promoted to u64, however the frequency
> calculations done when using level indexing mode doesn't use the
> multiplier computed. It instead hardcodes the multiplier value of 1000
> at all the usage sites.
> 
> Clean that up by assigning the multiplier value of 1000 when using
> the perf level indexing mode and upadte the frequency calculations to

				   ^update

> use the multiplier instead. It should fix the possible frequency
> truncation for all the values greater than or equal to 4GHz.
> 
> Fixes: 31c7c1397a33 ("firmware: arm_scmi: Add v3.2 perf level indexing mode support")
> Reported-by: Sibi Sankar <quic_sibis@quicinc.com>
> Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20231129065748.19871-3-quic_sibis@quicinc.com/
> Cc: Cristian Marussi <cristian.marussi@arm.com>
> Signed-off-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
> ---

Other than the typo, LGTM.

Reviewed-by: Cristian Marussi <cristian.marussi@arm.com>

Thanks,
Cristian

>  drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/perf.c | 12 +++++++-----
>  1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/perf.c b/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/perf.c
> index 8ce449922e55..875dcb71bb65 100644
> --- a/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/perf.c
> +++ b/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/perf.c
> @@ -268,7 +268,8 @@ scmi_perf_domain_attributes_get(const struct scmi_protocol_handle *ph,
>  		dom_info->sustained_perf_level =
>  					le32_to_cpu(attr->sustained_perf_level);
>  		if (!dom_info->sustained_freq_khz ||
> -		    !dom_info->sustained_perf_level)
> +		    !dom_info->sustained_perf_level ||
> +		    dom_info->level_indexing_mode)
>  			/* CPUFreq converts to kHz, hence default 1000 */
>  			dom_info->mult_factor =	1000;
>  		else
> @@ -806,7 +807,7 @@ static int scmi_dvfs_device_opps_add(const struct scmi_protocol_handle *ph,
>  		if (!dom->level_indexing_mode)
>  			freq = dom->opp[idx].perf * dom->mult_factor;
>  		else
> -			freq = dom->opp[idx].indicative_freq * 1000;
> +			freq = dom->opp[idx].indicative_freq * dom->mult_factor;
> 
>  		data.level = dom->opp[idx].perf;
>  		data.freq = freq;
> @@ -853,7 +854,8 @@ static int scmi_dvfs_freq_set(const struct scmi_protocol_handle *ph, u32 domain,
>  	} else {
>  		struct scmi_opp *opp;
> 
> -		opp = LOOKUP_BY_FREQ(dom->opps_by_freq, freq / 1000);
> +		opp = LOOKUP_BY_FREQ(dom->opps_by_freq,
> +				     freq / dom->mult_factor);
>  		if (!opp)
>  			return -EIO;
> 
> @@ -887,7 +889,7 @@ static int scmi_dvfs_freq_get(const struct scmi_protocol_handle *ph, u32 domain,
>  		if (!opp)
>  			return -EIO;
> 
> -		*freq = opp->indicative_freq * 1000;
> +		*freq = opp->indicative_freq * dom->mult_factor;
>  	}
> 
>  	return ret;
> @@ -910,7 +912,7 @@ static int scmi_dvfs_est_power_get(const struct scmi_protocol_handle *ph,
>  		if (!dom->level_indexing_mode)
>  			opp_freq = opp->perf * dom->mult_factor;
>  		else
> -			opp_freq = opp->indicative_freq * 1000;
> +			opp_freq = opp->indicative_freq * dom->mult_factor;
> 
>  		if (opp_freq < *freq)
>  			continue;
> --
> 2.43.0
>
Sudeep Holla Dec. 1, 2023, 4:41 p.m. UTC | #4
On Fri, Dec 01, 2023 at 04:17:56PM +0000, Cristian Marussi wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 01, 2023 at 02:39:35PM +0000, Sudeep Holla wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 30, 2023 at 08:43:42PM +0000, Sudeep Holla wrote:
> > > Fix the frequency truncation for all values equal to or greater 4GHz by
> > > updating the multiplier 'mult_factor' to u64 type. It is also possible
> > > that the multiplier itself can be greater than or equal to 2^32. So we need
> > > to also fix the equation computing the value of the multiplier.
> > > 
> > > Fixes: a9e3fbfaa0ff ("firmware: arm_scmi: add initial support for performance protocol")
> > > Reported-by: Sibi Sankar <quic_sibis@quicinc.com>
> > > Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20231129065748.19871-3-quic_sibis@quicinc.com/
> > > Cc: Cristian Marussi <cristian.marussi@arm.com>
> > > Signed-off-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
> > > ---
> > >  drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/perf.c | 6 +++---
> > >  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/perf.c b/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/perf.c
> > > index 81dd5c5e5533..8ce449922e55 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/perf.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/perf.c
> > > @@ -152,7 +152,7 @@ struct perf_dom_info {
> > >  	u32 opp_count;
> > >  	u32 sustained_freq_khz;
> > >  	u32 sustained_perf_level;
> > > -	u32 mult_factor;
> > > +	u64 mult_factor;
> > 
> > I have now changed this to unsigned long instead of u64 to fix the 32-bit
> > build failure[1].
> 
> Right, I was caught a few times too by this kind of failures on v7 :D
>

😄

> ... but this 32bit issue makes me wonder what to do in such a case...
>

Same here, but the frequency calculations are also unsigned long in higher
layers, so I don't see any point in making it u64(also 32-bit doesn't
support 32bit value to be divided by a 64bit value which adds unnecessary
complications here).

> ...I mean, on 32bit if the calculated freq oveflows, there is just
> nothing we can do on v7 without overcomplicating the code...but I suppose
> it is unplausible to have such high freq on a v7...

Yes this is exactly the argument I made myself and got convinced to keep
it unsigned long(KISS approach) unless we need it on v7.

> as a palliative I can only think of some sort of overflow check (only on v7)
> that could trigger a warning ... but it is hardly worth the effort
> probably..
>

Not sure myself.

--
Regards,
Sudeep
diff mbox series

Patch

diff --git a/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/perf.c b/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/perf.c
index 81dd5c5e5533..8ce449922e55 100644
--- a/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/perf.c
+++ b/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/perf.c
@@ -152,7 +152,7 @@  struct perf_dom_info {
 	u32 opp_count;
 	u32 sustained_freq_khz;
 	u32 sustained_perf_level;
-	u32 mult_factor;
+	u64 mult_factor;
 	struct scmi_perf_domain_info info;
 	struct scmi_opp opp[MAX_OPPS];
 	struct scmi_fc_info *fc_info;
@@ -273,8 +273,8 @@  scmi_perf_domain_attributes_get(const struct scmi_protocol_handle *ph,
 			dom_info->mult_factor =	1000;
 		else
 			dom_info->mult_factor =
-					(dom_info->sustained_freq_khz * 1000) /
-					dom_info->sustained_perf_level;
+					(dom_info->sustained_freq_khz * 1000UL)
+					/ dom_info->sustained_perf_level;
 		strscpy(dom_info->info.name, attr->name,
 			SCMI_SHORT_NAME_MAX_SIZE);
 	}