From: Hongyan Xia <hongyan.xia@transsion.com>
To: jong wu <jianyong.wu@outlook.com>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
"Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>,
Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>,
Zhongqiu Han <zhongqiu.han@oss.qualcomm.com>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
K Prateek Nayak <kprateek.nayak@amd.com>,
"linux-pm@vger.kernel.org" <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"zhongyuan@hygon.cn" <zhongyuan@hygon.cn>,
"huangsj@hygon.cn" <huangsj@hygon.cn>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: Only apply cpufreq pressure where frequency is invariant
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2026 09:37:57 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <44993024-f1bb-4b4f-802b-a22f95101171@transsion.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <SI2PR04MB4931F65C44962845CE345B79E3B72@SI2PR04MB4931.apcprd04.prod.outlook.com>
On 9/2/2026 4:49 PM, jong wu wrote:
> 在 2026/8/25 21:05, Vincent Guittot 写道:
>> On Mon, 24 Aug 2026 at 15:06, Jianyong Wu <jianyong.wu@outlook.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Vincent, Hongyan,
>>>
>>> Thanks for your comments.
>>>
>>> My original commit message did not clearly describe the concrete issue
>>> being fixed, and its explanation based on frequency invariance was not
>>> correct. After looking into this further, I found that the issue I
>>> observed has a different cause: the cpuinfo.max_freq fallback added by
>>> d2d5c129d07e ("cpufreq: Make cpufreq_update_pressure() fall back to
>>> cpuinfo.max_freq").
>>>
>>> The commit message says:
>>>
>>> However, in the absence of arch_scale_freq_ref(), it is reasonable
>>> to assume that cpuinfo.max_freq is the maximum sustainable frequency
>>> for the given cpufreq policy.
>>>
>>> That assumption does not always hold.
>>>
>>> On an x86 server using acpi-cpufreq, cpuinfo.max_freq includes the
>>> autonomous boost frequency, while policy->max is resolved to the
>>> highest selectable _PSS state. With boost enabled and policy->max
>>> unchanged at that state, the measured CPU frequency can still exceed
>>> policy->max. Thus, policy->max does not represent an effective hardware
>>> maximum-frequency cap in this case.
>>>
>>> Nevertheless, the cpuinfo.max_freq fallback makes
>>> cpufreq_update_pressure() calculate positive pressure for every policy,
>>> although no effective maximum-frequency restriction has been applied.
>>>
>>> The underlying issue is that cpuinfo.max_freq is the maximum possible
>>> operating frequency and may include an autonomous boost frequency,
>>> whereas policy->max may represent the highest selectable _PSS state.
>>> Consequently, policy->max < cpuinfo.max_freq does not necessarily mean
>>> that the available CPU capacity has been capped.
>>
>> IIUC, cpuinfo.max_freq == boost freq and policy->max reflects the
>> correct highest frequency reachable by the CPU when boost is disabled
>> so the cpufreq_pressure is correct. But your policy->max is not
>> updated when boot is enable and doesn't reflect the highest freq
>> reachable by the CPU.
>>
>
> Exactly. I think the root cause is that policy->max has different
> semantics across cpufreq drivers. On Intel and most AMD machines it is
> the maximum attainable frequency, i.e. the boost frequency when boost
> is enabled. For acpi-cpufreq, however, policy->max is resolved from the
> ACPI _PSS table, which does not contain the boost frequency.
Proper solutions aside, I vaguely remember investigating scheduler
issues on a Ryzen 7840U. That has acpi-cpufreq with only 3 OPPs. Boost
frequencies are not included in those 3 and are much higher than the
ACPI OPPs. I certainly managed to disable pstate and switched to
acpi-cpufreq on it. I wonder if you can reproduce such issues on such a
machine. Maybe this is a broader issue than we realize.
> [...]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-09-02 9:38 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-08-21 7:39 [PATCH] sched/fair: Only apply cpufreq pressure where frequency is invariant Jianyong Wu
2026-08-21 9:26 ` Vincent Guittot
2026-08-24 3:44 ` Hongyan Xia
2026-08-24 13:06 ` Jianyong Wu
2026-08-25 7:40 ` Hongyan Xia
2026-09-02 9:00 ` jong wu
2026-08-25 13:05 ` Vincent Guittot
2026-09-02 8:49 ` jong wu
2026-09-02 9:37 ` Hongyan Xia [this message]
2026-09-03 2:04 ` jong wu
2026-09-07 2:32 ` Hongyan Xia
2026-09-07 8:07 ` K Prateek Nayak
2026-09-07 8:37 ` K Prateek Nayak
2026-09-08 7:19 ` jong wu
2026-09-09 4:09 ` Hongyan Xia
2026-09-09 10:04 ` K Prateek Nayak
2026-09-10 8:05 ` Vincent Guittot
2026-09-10 11:59 ` Jianyong Wu
2026-09-12 7:11 ` Jianyong Wu
2026-09-07 14:57 ` jong wu
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=44993024-f1bb-4b4f-802b-a22f95101171@transsion.com \
--to=hongyan.xia@transsion.com \
--cc=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \
--cc=huangsj@hygon.cn \
--cc=jianyong.wu@outlook.com \
--cc=juri.lelli@redhat.com \
--cc=kprateek.nayak@amd.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rafael@kernel.org \
--cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.org \
--cc=viresh.kumar@linaro.org \
--cc=zhongqiu.han@oss.qualcomm.com \
--cc=zhongyuan@hygon.cn \
/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