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 DA4FC30AACA; Sat, 31 Jan 2026 03:28:28 +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=1769830111; cv=none; b=QNSSGSCZ1Yg2/LUeIiuPHD1tS6MS5VVRVSNttxHe52mi7qSB0X9jsCbos0UWR0+vcYJ2y/NiGTHw3AuUHf/p5t2DDVmjjjDgkOQ3lbXWvCEIaZlPQH7Kj2plpXpmuta3euSJkDy8RPL9HKkcDvfTDVhM+HK4fYxHCIhI31kWWww= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1769830111; c=relaxed/simple; bh=0mtnfQtxg7QdsxYHUX/XNIc4HGqog3OtlXupiGcdgVg=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:CC:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=XpjJDZD94dspzIixo+22CdOX9cOVgbzztjKvs9864YcV4rv7EBz+6HYqhXXqd2Jm4Gv1RsG4OLjrZSOEBJJOaJluIca3Ky3gWq7K8VbCX0xFrshZ2eFB74pdI+Gw/dTAw26eubmXjESdwVijNY4gdDm73DMUa2+DSvGG3hN0p+4= 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=GNvoOeRv; 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="GNvoOeRv" dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=huawei.com; s=dkim; c=relaxed/relaxed; q=dns/txt; h=From; bh=T298TrAtGUnTDTh/OMLw0RpeL50vtnNqbPKtbF9TXyM=; b=GNvoOeRvkLIZTrWpogRtx3mPzhHb0ngeigan7jIUksEMQxgw63jkeBVo4oETrXTiOltzEUmkg r3rlEBVrRM2NZJjfkQd9DUfiuo2m5r95NwyF+AhjteOx+YM33heD2o+vK/qBAQKCEVWqx2j59fL Hd1byc3m254pHXzi9MeJClo= Received: from mail.maildlp.com (unknown [172.19.162.197]) by canpmsgout01.his.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTPS id 4f2ysH11jjz1T4Fg; Sat, 31 Jan 2026 11:24:03 +0800 (CST) Received: from kwepemf200001.china.huawei.com (unknown [7.202.181.227]) by mail.maildlp.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 82A4440569; Sat, 31 Jan 2026 11:28:19 +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; Sat, 31 Jan 2026 11:28:18 +0800 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2026 11:28:18 +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> From: "zhenglifeng (A)" In-Reply-To: <20260126101826.94030-2-pierre.gondois@arm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-ClientProxiedBy: kwepems200002.china.huawei.com (7.221.188.68) To kwepemf200001.china.huawei.com (7.202.181.227) 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. > } > > if (cpufreq_driver->get && has_target()) {