From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from canpmsgout01.his.huawei.com (canpmsgout01.his.huawei.com [113.46.200.216]) (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 B8452266B72; Fri, 6 Feb 2026 07:17:37 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=113.46.200.216 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1770362259; cv=none; b=CN+2NVGS6ASXwpiPTVNgeQjehm23C2dpU9WUPRQ9svmklgM0n1XFigXMqAG0ly4hTtiUayT3zjrKdF0neZ2TmVZopYnteGeAEdYR4H8Sdh4vxsrO4ce85UxkSXn+k7YJruq7YU7pIOXdGCV9G4NUaPLHDH4N26Wpexr3EXpwFtQ= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1770362259; c=relaxed/simple; bh=55JrrP6ZCdz1PmtIb8/wkJ2nvRfJiFp0wtRT83waXEY=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:CC:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=mZkZ0yOtg2b/3H8Vd9j8nKEAX1S2PM7L45eG8HJAkFakaeGl0Y3ZtWiynkXisRyydmn8EYQ2MY8Wrfc9Imtl5JrqVURd5D9g+j75HEGEu5oWijMzoJVXefLNs3jg45sH+6UdZnRZVnZ0Nml3SDTD8oz1+G3KYu3qNucNM2EK2BI= 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=cZbaltov; arc=none smtp.client-ip=113.46.200.216 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="cZbaltov" dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=huawei.com; s=dkim; c=relaxed/relaxed; q=dns/txt; h=From; bh=WqFqsrNUfk7v30eJycZT2m37sawRQ6vSY5xz72oh79M=; b=cZbaltovPiXPFAY2d6zEb8XahGuD4J9IOnTSu9yta60X5Gvh0qF0HRnMjpOYsCfP9gyOI8/El Iop9UBBJUynb3wQfjlhLdxUbagSU4LjgT96pliIIiK+jPmbEmDg8y+hIjEstqoU2rsF21v6idnU cmLS60TKN20UmS9nV4AYILI= Received: from mail.maildlp.com (unknown [172.19.162.140]) by canpmsgout01.his.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTPS id 4f6lfs2dhWz1T4Fj; Fri, 6 Feb 2026 15:13:09 +0800 (CST) Received: from kwepemf200001.china.huawei.com (unknown [7.202.181.227]) by mail.maildlp.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6DAAD2012A; Fri, 6 Feb 2026 15:17:34 +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; Fri, 6 Feb 2026 15:17:33 +0800 Message-ID: <8c174633-4005-4e52-bb6b-9e9c6181b12b@huawei.com> Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2026 15:17:33 +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 1/6] cpufreq: Remove per-CPU QoS constraint To: Pierre Gondois CC: Jie Zhan , Ionela Voinescu , Christian Loehle , , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Viresh Kumar , Huang Rui , "Gautham R. Shenoy" , Mario Limonciello , Perry Yuan , Srinivas Pandruvada , Len Brown , Saravana Kannan , , References: <20260126101826.94030-1-pierre.gondois@arm.com> <20260126101826.94030-2-pierre.gondois@arm.com> <1a9295be-49ee-4fc5-acfa-ac353c8c56e5@arm.com> From: "zhenglifeng (A)" In-Reply-To: <1a9295be-49ee-4fc5-acfa-ac353c8c56e5@arm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-ClientProxiedBy: kwepems200002.china.huawei.com (7.221.188.68) To kwepemf200001.china.huawei.com (7.202.181.227) On 2026/2/5 21:59, Pierre Gondois wrote: > > On 1/31/26 04:28, zhenglifeng (A) wrote: >> On 2026/1/26 18:18, 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 patch reverts of: >>> commit 1608f0230510 ("cpufreq: Fix re-boost issue after hotplugging >>> a CPU") >>> >>> 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 4472bb1ec83c7..db414c052658b 100644 >>> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c >>> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c >>> @@ -1481,10 +1481,6 @@ 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; >> I think this shouldn't be the first patch. This can be removed only after >> adding boost_freq_req, otherwise it's letting the problem out again. > > > Would it be ok to change the order of the patches (i.e. patch 1 and 2) instead of melding this change in another patch ? > I tested the patch on my machine, and it seems the original problem no longer exists. So I now think it's OK to revert this commit. Reviewed-by: Lifeng Zheng >