From: Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>
To: Zhongqiu Han <zhongqiu.han@oss.qualcomm.com>,
Ananthu C V <ananthu.cv@oss.qualcomm.com>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@kernel.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>,
Danilo Krummrich <dakr@kernel.org>,
Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>,
Jie Zhan <zhanjie9@hisilicon.com>,
Pierre Gondois <pierre.gondois@arm.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, driver-core@lists.linux.dev,
linux-pm@vger.kernel.org,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>,
Oleg Keri <okerixx@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] arch_topology: seed capacity_freq_ref with highest available frequency
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2026 20:45:56 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <cfb79ffe-41b7-4e58-b3f5-fc9a28a4e413@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <fbd7fe35-5e14-4589-a072-909e49a92e76@oss.qualcomm.com>
On 11.10.26 16:16, Zhongqiu Han wrote:
> On 9/29/2026 7:38 PM, Ananthu C V wrote:
[...]
> Besides, could you comment patch v2 Dietmar's comments? It seems that
> patch 1/2 exposes a pre-existing ordering issue. On DT systems,
> cpu_scale is normalized only from the CPUFREQ_CREATE_POLICY notification
> of the last policy, so the cpufreq pressure of every other policy is
> computed in cpufreq_init_policy() from the raw, not yet normalized,
> capacity, and stays cached until the next cpufreq_set_policy() for that
> policy. So far this was harmless because capacity_freq_ref == policy-
>>max at boot, so the pressure was 0 regardless of the capacity. With
> 1/2, capacity_freq_ref covers the boost frequencies while boost is
> disabled at boot, so policy->max < capacity_freq_ref becomes the common
> case and the stale value becomes visible (102 vs 79 on Juno R0, as
> reported by Dietmar). Perhaps the limits of all policies could be
> refreshed once from parsing_done_workfn(), after the capacities have
> been normalized?
>
> --- a/drivers/base/arch_topology.c
> +++ b/drivers/base/arch_topology.c
> @@ -454,9 +454,27 @@ core_initcall(register_cpufreq_notifier);
>
> static void parsing_done_workfn(struct work_struct *work)
> {
> + int cpu;
> +
> cpufreq_unregister_notifier(&init_cpu_capacity_notifier,
> CPUFREQ_POLICY_NOTIFIER);
> free_cpumask_var(cpus_to_visit);
> +
> + /*
> + * The cpufreq pressure of all policies but the last one has been
> + * computed before topology_normalize_cpu_scale(), so refresh it now
> + * that cpu_scale is final.
> + */
> + for_each_possible_cpu(cpu) {
> + struct cpufreq_policy *policy __free(put_cpufreq_policy) =
> + cpufreq_cpu_get(cpu);
> +
> + if (!policy || cpu != policy->cpu)
> + continue;
> +
> + guard(cpufreq_policy_write)(policy);
> + refresh_frequency_limits(policy);
> + }
Yes, IMHO, something like this is needed.
[ 1.169158] cpufreq_notifier_max(): current=[kworker/u26:0 46] policy->related_cpus=[] (1)
[ 1.169209] init_cpu_capacity_callback(): current=[kworker/u26:0 46] policy->related_cpus=[0,3-5]
[ 1.169992] cpufreq_update_pressure(): current=[kworker/u26:0 46] policy->related_cpus=[0,3-5] policy->max=700000 pressure=102 max_capacity=578 capped_freq=700000 max_freq=850000
[ 1.170203] cpufreq_update_pressure(): current=[kworker/2:2 67] policy->related_cpus=[0,3-5] policy->max=700000 pressure=102 max_capacity=578 capped_freq=700000 max_freq=850000 (2)
[ 1.170835] cpufreq_notifier_max(): current=[kworker/u26:0 46] policy->related_cpus=[] (1)
[ 1.170872] init_cpu_capacity_callback(): current=[kworker/u26:0 46] policy->related_cpus=[1-2]
[ 1.174516] cpufreq_update_pressure(): current=[kworker/u26:0 46] policy->related_cpus=[1-2] policy->max=800000 pressure=280 max_capacity=1024 capped_freq=800000 max_freq=1100000
[ 1.175261] cpufreq_update_pressure(): current=[kworker/2:2 67] policy->related_cpus=[1-2] policy->max=800000 pressure=280 max_capacity=1024 capped_freq=800000 max_freq=1100000 (2)
[ 1.187698] cpufreq_update_pressure(): current=[kworker/2:0 28] policy->related_cpus=[0,3-5] policy->max=700000 pressure=79 max_capacity=446 capped_freq=700000 max_freq=850000 (3)
[ 1.187847] cpufreq_update_pressure(): current=[kworker/2:0 28] policy->related_cpus=[1-2] policy->max=800000 pressure=280 max_capacity=1024 capped_freq=800000 max_freq=1100000 (3)
The work scheduled in (1) also still operates on raw capacity (2).
(3) shows your extension in parsing_done_workfn() work function which
gets scheduled when all CPUs are initialised, so
topology_normalize_cpu_scale() had been called.
Not sure whether we can call cpufreq_update_limits(cpu) there instead
(maybe extended with a 'only do this for policy->cpu'?). So we won't
have to expose cpufreq internals in /drivers/base/arch_topology.c.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-10-12 18:46 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-09-29 11:38 [PATCH v3 0/2] sched/cpufreq: fix schedutil's boost frequency handling Ananthu C V
2026-09-29 11:38 ` [PATCH v3 1/2] arch_topology: seed capacity_freq_ref with highest available frequency Ananthu C V
2026-10-11 14:16 ` Zhongqiu Han
2026-10-12 18:45 ` Dietmar Eggemann [this message]
2026-09-29 11:38 ` [PATCH v3 2/2] cpufreq: fix policy max not returning to non-boost freq on boost disable Ananthu C V
2026-10-11 14:17 ` Zhongqiu Han
2026-10-11 23:42 ` Dietmar Eggemann
2026-09-30 9:10 ` [PATCH v3 0/2] sched/cpufreq: fix schedutil's boost frequency handling Oleg Keri
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=cfb79ffe-41b7-4e58-b3f5-fc9a28a4e413@arm.com \
--to=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \
--cc=ananthu.cv@oss.qualcomm.com \
--cc=dakr@kernel.org \
--cc=driver-core@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=okerixx@gmail.com \
--cc=pierre.gondois@arm.com \
--cc=rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com \
--cc=rafael@kernel.org \
--cc=sudeep.holla@kernel.org \
--cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.org \
--cc=viresh.kumar@linaro.org \
--cc=zhanjie9@hisilicon.com \
--cc=zhongqiu.han@oss.qualcomm.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®