From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from szxga02-in.huawei.com (szxga02-in.huawei.com [45.249.212.188]) (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 2089038B; Tue, 21 Jan 2025 01:45:37 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=45.249.212.188 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1737423941; cv=none; b=aBrTLuxdgo4oER0U7jTxxieiGZud81EGHj+tw+CmoJhLzXmatydEwmsHrsYsylmvS0en5fLjCB3lUYBxXCAMnTCRyv88dQY2euFCRcz2QN3VDq0FoCOOC0ufdxWBCRL3tnY2npxEIN0qBPim8AoDgQ0uJYrZQ2yClY2cDH6tDcY= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1737423941; c=relaxed/simple; bh=375nvZnUmo/ZXtzmXpbmPcVNjfzcG6ZqCHCx+K9cXuA=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:CC:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=CgzYEbfmt6Cr6yR846hc9ZACfuaBSAcn9RtVEGV20sVm5Ns8erFyZRUpMJCVT9VaIh8ZMkZNtIK/bQIFX8jd65eKq+ghPdvWM1E/S33dTjkkicjFX0CXRvuNJ8MufMuc4g+rwNJ7f9bY1rdgmMVVmBtseLOr/mhyeZLpJxMydGU= 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; arc=none smtp.client-ip=45.249.212.188 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 Received: from mail.maildlp.com (unknown [172.19.163.174]) by szxga02-in.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4YcVM42c2Qzgc2V; Tue, 21 Jan 2025 09:42:24 +0800 (CST) Received: from kwepemh100008.china.huawei.com (unknown [7.202.181.93]) by mail.maildlp.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 22EE91400CD; Tue, 21 Jan 2025 09:45:35 +0800 (CST) Received: from [10.67.121.90] (10.67.121.90) by kwepemh100008.china.huawei.com (7.202.181.93) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.2.1544.11; Tue, 21 Jan 2025 09:45:34 +0800 Message-ID: <0c910772-368b-4e30-9ce2-1f68510703c4@huawei.com> Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2025 09:45:33 +0800 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/4] cpufreq: Introduce a more generic way to set default per-policy boost flag To: Viresh Kumar CC: , , , , , , , References: <20250117101457.1530653-1-zhenglifeng1@huawei.com> <20250117101457.1530653-3-zhenglifeng1@huawei.com> <20250120090102.erm2ffkbnwa5vraa@vireshk-i7> From: "zhenglifeng (A)" In-Reply-To: <20250120090102.erm2ffkbnwa5vraa@vireshk-i7> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-ClientProxiedBy: dggems706-chm.china.huawei.com (10.3.19.183) To kwepemh100008.china.huawei.com (7.202.181.93) On 2025/1/20 17:01, Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 17-01-25, 18:14, Lifeng Zheng wrote: >> In cpufreq_online() of cpufreq.c, the per-policy boost flag is already set >> to mirror the cpufreq_driver boost during init but using freq_table to >> judge if the policy has boost frequency. There are two drawbacks to this >> approach: >> >> 1. It doesn't work for the cpufreq drivers that do not use a frequency >> table. For now, acpi-cpufreq and amd-pstate have to enable boost in policy >> initialization. And cppc_cpufreq never set policy to boost when going >> online no matter what the cpufreq_driver boost flag is. >> >> 2. If the cpu goes offline when cpufreq_driver boost enabled and then goes >> online when cpufreq_driver boost disabled, the per-policy boost flag will >> unreasonably remain true. >> >> Running set_boost at the end of the online process is a more generic way >> for all cpufreq drivers. >> >> Signed-off-by: Lifeng Zheng >> --- >> drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c | 16 ++++++++++++---- >> 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c >> index 5882d7f5e3c1..5a3566c2eb8d 100644 >> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c >> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c >> @@ -1409,10 +1409,6 @@ static int cpufreq_online(unsigned int cpu) >> goto out_free_policy; >> } >> >> - /* Let the per-policy boost flag mirror the cpufreq_driver boost during init */ >> - if (cpufreq_boost_enabled() && policy_has_boost_freq(policy)) >> - policy->boost_enabled = true; >> - >> /* >> * The initialization has succeeded and the policy is online. >> * If there is a problem with its frequency table, take it >> @@ -1573,6 +1569,18 @@ static int cpufreq_online(unsigned int cpu) >> if (new_policy && cpufreq_thermal_control_enabled(cpufreq_driver)) >> policy->cdev = of_cpufreq_cooling_register(policy); >> >> + /* Let the per-policy boost flag mirror the cpufreq_driver boost during init */ >> + if (policy->boost_enabled != cpufreq_boost_enabled()) { >> + policy->boost_enabled = cpufreq_boost_enabled(); >> + ret = cpufreq_driver->set_boost(policy, policy->boost_enabled); > > I though you agreed to do some optimization here ? Sorry. Do I miss something here? > >> + if (ret) { >> + /* If the set_boost fails, the online operation is not affected */ >> + pr_info("%s: CPU%d: Cannot %s BOOST\n", __func__, policy->cpu, >> + policy->boost_enabled ? "enable" : "disable"); >> + policy->boost_enabled = !policy->boost_enabled; >> + } >> + } >> + >> pr_debug("initialization complete\n"); >> >> return 0; >> -- >> 2.33.0 >