kernel/linux.git/drivers/acpi/cppc_acpi.c, branch v6.18.34

ACPI: CPPC: Fix related_cpus inconsistency during CPU hotplug

2026-05-14T13:30:11+00:00

commit 75141a770f4f8225d316f6c7e146723a32e9720e upstream. When concurrently bringing up and down two SMT threads of a physical core, many warning call traces occur as below: The issue timeline is as follows: 1. When the system starts, cpufreq: CPU: 220, policy->related_cpus: 220-221, policy->cpus: 220-221 2. Offline CPU 220 and CPU 221. 3. Online CPU 220 - CPU 221 is now offline, as acpi_get_psd_map() use for_each_online_cpu(), so the cpu_data->shared_cpu_map, policy->cpus, and related_cpus has only CPU 220. cpufreq: CPU: 220, policy->related_cpus: 220, policy->cpus: 220 4. Offline CPU 220 5. Online CPU 221, the below call trace occurs: - Since CPU 220 and CPU 221 share one policy, and policy->related_cpus = 220 after step 3, so CPU 221 is not in policy->related_cpus but per_cpu(cpufreq_cpu_data, cpu221) is not NULL. After reverting commit 56eb0c0ed345 ("ACPI: CPPC: Fix remaining for_each_possible_cpu() to use online CPUs"), the issue disappeared. The _PSD (P-State Dependency) defines the hardware-level dependency of frequency control across CPU cores. Since this relationship is a physical attribute of the hardware topology, it remains constant regardless of the online or offline status of the CPUs. Using for_each_online_cpu() in acpi_get_psd_map() is problematic. If a CPU is offline, it will be excluded from the shared_cpu_map. Consequently, if that CPU is brought online later, the kernel will fail to recognize it as part of any shared frequency domain. Switch back to for_each_possible_cpu() to ensure that all cores defined in the ACPI tables are correctly mapped into their respective performance domains from the start. This aligns with the logic of policy->related_cpus, which must encompass all potentially available cores in the domain to prevent logic gaps during CPU hotplug operations. To resolve the original issue regarding the "nosmt" or "nosmt=force" boot parameter, as send_pcc_cmd() function already does if (!desc) continue, so reverting that loop back to for_each_possible_cpu() is ok, only need to change the match_cpc_ptr NULL case in acpi_get_psd_map() to continue as Sean suggested. How to reproduce, on arm64 machine with SMT support which use acpi cppc cpufreq driver: bash test.sh 220 & bash test.sh 221 & The test.sh is as below: while true do echo 0 > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu${1}/online sleep 0.5 cat /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu${1}/cpufreq/related_cpus echo 1 > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu${1}/online cat /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu${1}/cpufreq/related_cpus done CPU: 221 PID: 1119 Comm: cpuhp/221 Kdump: loaded Not tainted 6.6.0debug+ #5 Hardware name: To be filled by O.E.M. S920X20/BC83AMDA01-7270Z, BIOS 20.39 09/04/2024 pstate: a1400009 (NzCv daif +PAN -UAO -TCO +DIT -SSBS BTYPE=--) pc : cpufreq_online+0x8ac/0xa90 lr : cpuhp_cpufreq_online+0x18/0x30 sp : ffff80008739bce0 x29: ffff80008739bce0 x28: 0000000000000000 x27: ffff28400ca32200 x26: 0000000000000000 x25: 0000000000000003 x24: ffffd483503ff000 x23: ffffd483504051a0 x22: ffffd48350024a00 x21: 00000000000000dd x20: 000000000000001d x19: ffff28400ca32000 x18: 0000000000000000 x17: 0000000000000020 x16: ffffd4834e6a3fc8 x15: 0000000000000020 x14: 0000000000000008 x13: 0000000000000001 x12: 00000000ffffffff x11: 0000000000000040 x10: ffffd48350430728 x9 : ffffd4834f087c78 x8 : 0000000000000001 x7 : ffff2840092bdf00 x6 : ffffd483504264f0 x5 : ffffd48350405000 x4 : ffff283f7f95cc60 x3 : 0000000000000000 x2 : ffff53bc2f94b000 x1 : 00000000000000dd x0 : 0000000000000000 Call trace: cpufreq_online+0x8ac/0xa90 cpuhp_cpufreq_online+0x18/0x30 cpuhp_invoke_callback+0x128/0x580 cpuhp_thread_fun+0x110/0x1b0 smpboot_thread_fn+0x140/0x190 kthread+0xec/0x100 ret_from_fork+0x10/0x20 ---[ end trace 0000000000000000 ]--- Cc: All applicable Fixes: 56eb0c0ed345 ("ACPI: CPPC: Fix remaining for_each_possible_cpu() to use online CPUs") Co-developed-by: Sean Kelley Signed-off-by: Sean Kelley Signed-off-by: Jinjie Ruan [ rjw: Changelog edits ] Link: https://patch.msgid.link/20260417040112.3727756-1-ruanjinjie@huawei.com Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman

ACPI: CPPC: Fix remaining for_each_possible_cpu() to use online CPUs

2026-02-26T22:59:36+00:00

[ Upstream commit 56eb0c0ed345da7815274aa821a8546a073d7e97 ] per_cpu(cpc_desc_ptr, cpu) object is initialized for only the online CPUs via acpi_soft_cpu_online() --> __acpi_processor_start() --> acpi_cppc_processor_probe(). However, send_pcc_cmd() and acpi_get_psd_map() still iterate over all possible CPUs. In acpi_get_psd_map(), encountering an offline CPU returns -EFAULT, causing cppc_cpufreq initialization to fail. This breaks systems booted with "nosmt" or "nosmt=force". Fix by using for_each_online_cpu() in both functions. Fixes: 80b8286aeec0 ("ACPI / CPPC: support for batching CPPC requests") Signed-off-by: Sean V Kelley Link: https://patch.msgid.link/20260211212254.30190-1-skelley@nvidia.com Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin

ACPI: CPPC: Fix missing PCC check for guaranteed_perf

2026-01-02T11:56:57+00:00

commit 6ea3a44cef28add2d93b1ef119d84886cb1e3c9b upstream. The current implementation overlooks the 'guaranteed_perf' register in this check. If the Guaranteed Performance register is located in the PCC subspace, the function currently attempts to read it without acquiring the lock and without sending the CMD_READ doorbell to the firmware. This can result in reading stale data. Fixes: 29523f095397 ("ACPI / CPPC: Add support for guaranteed performance") Signed-off-by: Pengjie Zhang Cc: 4.20+ # 4.20+ [ rjw: Subject and changelog edits ] Link: https://patch.msgid.link/20251210132227.1988380-1-zhangpengjie2@huawei.com Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman

ACPI: CPPC: Limit perf ctrs in PCC check only to online CPUs

2025-11-07T17:37:42+00:00

per_cpu(cpc_desc_ptr, cpu) object is initialized for only the online CPU via acpi_soft_cpu_online() --> __acpi_processor_start() --> acpi_cppc_processor_probe(). However the function cppc_perf_ctrs_in_pcc() checks if the CPPC perf-ctrs are in a PCC region for all the present CPUs, which breaks when the kernel is booted with "nosmt=force". Hence, limit the check only to the online CPUs. Fixes: ae2df912d1a5 ("ACPI: CPPC: Disable FIE if registers in PCC regions") Reviewed-by: "Mario Limonciello (AMD) (kernel.org)" Signed-off-by: Gautham R. Shenoy Link: https://patch.msgid.link/20251107074145.2340-5-gautham.shenoy@amd.com Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki

ACPI: CPPC: Perform fast check switch only for online CPUs

2025-11-07T17:37:42+00:00

per_cpu(cpc_desc_ptr, cpu) object is initialized for only the online CPUs via acpi_soft_cpu_online() --> __acpi_processor_start() --> acpi_cppc_processor_probe(). However the function cppc_allow_fast_switch() checks for the validity of the _CPC object for all the present CPUs. This breaks when the kernel is booted with "nosmt=force". Check fast_switch capability only on online CPUs Fixes: 15eece6c5b05 ("ACPI: CPPC: Fix NULL pointer dereference when nosmp is used") Reviewed-by: "Mario Limonciello (AMD) (kernel.org)" Signed-off-by: Gautham R. Shenoy Link: https://patch.msgid.link/20251107074145.2340-4-gautham.shenoy@amd.com Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki

ACPI: CPPC: Check _CPC validity for only the online CPUs

2025-11-07T17:37:42+00:00

per_cpu(cpc_desc_ptr, cpu) object is initialized for only the online CPUs via acpi_soft_cpu_online() --> __acpi_processor_start() --> acpi_cppc_processor_probe(). However the function acpi_cpc_valid() checks for the validity of the _CPC object for all the present CPUs. This breaks when the kernel is booted with "nosmt=force". Hence check the validity of the _CPC objects of only the online CPUs. Fixes: 2aeca6bd0277 ("ACPI: CPPC: Check present CPUs for determining _CPC is valid") Reported-by: Christopher Harris Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/CAM+eXpdDT7KjLV0AxEwOLkSJ2QtrsvGvjA2cCHvt1d0k2_C4Cw@mail.gmail.com/ Suggested-by: Mario Limonciello Reviewed-by: "Mario Limonciello (AMD) (kernel.org)" Tested-by: Chrisopher Harris Signed-off-by: Gautham R. Shenoy Link: https://patch.msgid.link/20251107074145.2340-3-gautham.shenoy@amd.com Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki

ACPI: CPPC: Fix typo in a comment

2025-11-03T16:25:42+00:00

Fix spelling from "pachage" to "package". Signed-off-by: Chu Guangqing [ rjw: Changelog and subject edits ] Link: https://patch.msgid.link/20251031055240.2791-1-chuguangqing@inspur.com Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki

ACPI: CPPC: Do not use CPUFREQ_ETERNAL as an error value

2025-10-01T11:57:13+00:00

Instead of using CPUFREQ_ETERNAL for signaling an error condition in cppc_get_transition_latency(), change the return value type of that function to int and make it return a proper negative error code on failures. No intentional functional impact. Reviewed-by: Mario Limonciello (AMD) Reviewed-by: Jie Zhan Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki Acked-by: Viresh Kumar Reviewed-by: Qais Yousef

ACPI: CPPC: Fix NULL pointer dereference when nosmp is used

2025-06-10T18:52:50+00:00

With nosmp in cmdline, other CPUs are not brought up, leaving their cpc_desc_ptr NULL. CPU0's iteration via for_each_possible_cpu() dereferences these NULL pointers, causing panic. Panic backtrace: [ 0.401123] Unable to handle kernel NULL pointer dereference at virtual address 00000000000000b8 ... [ 0.403255] [] cppc_allow_fast_switch+0x6a/0xd4 ... Kernel panic - not syncing: Attempted to kill init! Fixes: 3cc30dd00a58 ("cpufreq: CPPC: Enable fast_switch") Reported-by: Xu Lu Signed-off-by: Yunhui Cui Link: https://patch.msgid.link/20250604023036.99553-1-cuiyunhui@bytedance.com [ rjw: New subject ] Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki

ACPI: CPPC: Add three functions related to autonomous selection

2025-04-30T20:01:31+00:00

cppc_set_epp() - write energy performance preference register value, based on ACPI 6.5, s8.4.6.1.7 cppc_get_auto_act_window() - read autonomous activity window register value, based on ACPI 6.5, s8.4.6.1.6 cppc_set_auto_act_window() - write autonomous activity window register value, based on ACPI 6.5, s8.4.6.1.6 Reviewed-by: Pierre Gondois Signed-off-by: Lifeng Zheng Reviewed-by: Mario Limonciello Link: https://patch.msgid.link/20250411093855.982491-9-zhenglifeng1@huawei.com Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki