From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from canpmsgout02.his.huawei.com (canpmsgout02.his.huawei.com [113.46.200.217]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BF100315D47; Thu, 4 Dec 2025 12:09:06 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=113.46.200.217 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1764850149; cv=none; b=Qi1OYnKNf8eHXRUGeSThBpHRbPxM43Afcmmf9Rrb/spqfAMhYFnvk+0Wep/IjOl8Pn+R1FEjLSV3vdncwmfrBappfdbmLSn3ROfct8hLmjh367l6LpU8ZM0s/Qk7EuweeKBbWtTp4DDEOjusj5G5CSN60qRvxIeLVJRF9XnDB4k= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1764850149; c=relaxed/simple; bh=ejCsgYHT0V+jjxe4fr8Q0LHUEJhgSd78ohG8yBc6FCo=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:CC:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=AZJH0P3hiaOv71w9h6zVVGQC7aY/0o/MWu8ZKxLjfZTbd/PTm+je7wenOse4h+vsUaPM2EA3tCHMrcU/L3XKye5vzTOlkBFZgP6nn2h5DEg75vLRCKibWBz68TABne0E47CdTAxsYfiTKmWyh02L0iN1Hq2++uD16+47KUBiyL4= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=huawei.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=huawei.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=huawei.com header.i=@huawei.com header.b=r5ya2W2W; arc=none smtp.client-ip=113.46.200.217 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=huawei.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=huawei.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=huawei.com header.i=@huawei.com header.b="r5ya2W2W" dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=huawei.com; s=dkim; c=relaxed/relaxed; q=dns/txt; h=From; bh=ySb4VcpQywSPWjFen5U5AFIEZWXUKm4VZjuXBn9IO+8=; b=r5ya2W2W/H3BJEsF3YU+7BbJqqh7dCDpjwMS4Hzu9oZEUgbD9k8PIoq6kAcuNAqd9yPJHAvuQ eJcvRckHn2N+qQSXRkRAxyIB3AZMv70zVGQq77d6Eei3KHHDrR0UUVCVqaQTBbYHgU8c+W7IafT iAxR72aklXOjtZZ9TcSUWbI= Received: from mail.maildlp.com (unknown [172.19.162.254]) by canpmsgout02.his.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTPS id 4dMYBx6FLlzcb07; Thu, 4 Dec 2025 20:06:33 +0800 (CST) Received: from kwepemf200001.china.huawei.com (unknown [7.202.181.227]) by mail.maildlp.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BD84818047B; Thu, 4 Dec 2025 20:09:03 +0800 (CST) Received: from [10.67.121.90] (10.67.121.90) by kwepemf200001.china.huawei.com (7.202.181.227) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.2.1544.11; Thu, 4 Dec 2025 20:09:03 +0800 Message-ID: <6bb8f60f-bbeb-42c7-ac18-e996db6379bd@huawei.com> Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2025 20:09:02 +0800 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/4] Revert "cpufreq: Fix re-boost issue after hotplugging a CPU" To: Pierre Gondois CC: , Christian Loehle , Ionela Voinescu , Jie Zhan , Huang Rui , "Gautham R. Shenoy" , Mario Limonciello , Perry Yuan , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Viresh Kumar , References: <20251204101344.192678-1-pierre.gondois@arm.com> <20251204101344.192678-2-pierre.gondois@arm.com> From: "zhenglifeng (A)" In-Reply-To: <20251204101344.192678-2-pierre.gondois@arm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-ClientProxiedBy: kwepems500002.china.huawei.com (7.221.188.17) To kwepemf200001.china.huawei.com (7.202.181.227) On 2025/12/4 18:13, Pierre Gondois wrote: > policy->max_freq_req represents the maximum allowed frequency as > requested by the policyX/scaling_max_freq sysfs file. This request > applies to all CPUs of the policy. It is not possible to request > a per-CPU maximum frequency. > > Thus, the interaction between the policy boost and scaling_max_freq > settings should be handled by adding a boost specific QoS constraint. > This will be handled in the following patches. > > This reverts commit 1608f0230510489d74a2e24e47054233b7e4678a. > > Signed-off-by: Pierre Gondois > --- > drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c | 4 ---- > 1 file changed, 4 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c > index 852e024facc3c..11b29c7dbea9e 100644 > --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c > +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c > @@ -1478,10 +1478,6 @@ static int cpufreq_policy_online(struct cpufreq_policy *policy, > > blocking_notifier_call_chain(&cpufreq_policy_notifier_list, > CPUFREQ_CREATE_POLICY, policy); > - } else { > - ret = freq_qos_update_request(policy->max_freq_req, policy->max); > - if (ret < 0) > - goto out_destroy_policy; > } > > if (cpufreq_driver->get && has_target()) { I don't think this commit should be reverted individually. These changes can be included in patch 4, as they are doing the same thing if I understand it correctly.