From: "zhenglifeng (A)" <zhenglifeng1@huawei.com>
To: Pierre Gondois <pierre.gondois@arm.com>,
Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Cc: <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, Jie Zhan <zhanjie9@hisilicon.com>,
Ionela Voinescu <ionela.voinescu@arm.com>,
Sumit Gupta <sumitg@nvidia.com>, Huang Rui <ray.huang@amd.com>,
"Gautham R. Shenoy" <gautham.shenoy@amd.com>,
Mario Limonciello <mario.limonciello@amd.com>,
Perry Yuan <perry.yuan@amd.com>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>,
Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@linux.intel.com>,
Len Brown <lenb@kernel.org>,
Saravana Kannan <saravanak@kernel.org>,
<linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 1/4] cpufreq: Remove per-CPU QoS constraint
Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2026 18:04:48 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4592550c-6c56-4e71-a989-4e9ca90c97de@huawei.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <ad23c89f-776e-4788-88ee-08583c0aadaf@arm.com>
On 3/19/2026 5:30 PM, Pierre Gondois wrote:
>
> On 3/18/26 12:13, Viresh Kumar wrote:
>> On 17-03-26, 11:17, 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.
>> I don't think the above is required anymore. This patch is removing stale code
>> now which isn't useful anymore. It has nothing to do with a boost specific QOS
>> constraint.
> Yes ok
>> And it would be better to know for sure why this isn't required anymore and
>> which patch exactly fixed this issue.
>>
> On a kernel based on 1608f0230510~, and replicating the
> process described in the commit message of
>
> commit 1608f0230510 ("cpufreq: Fix re-boost issue after hotplugging
> a CPU")
>
> I could not see any issue regarding the values of:
>
> - policy1/cpuinfo_max_freq
> - policy1/scaling_max_freq
>
> The following sequence however had an issue:
>
> 1. echo 0 > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu1/online
> 2. echo 1 > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpufreq/boost
> 3. echo 1 > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu1/online
>
> as after 1.:
>
> cpufreq_boost_trigger_state()
> \-for_each_active_policy()
>
> doesn't enable boost for inactive policies. This leads to
> CPU1 having the non-boosted frequency as its max freq.
>
> The above sequence is fixed by:
>
> commit a153c6049ab8 ("cpufreq: Introduce a more
> generic way to set default per-policy boost flag")
Yes, I think this commit fixed the issue but I didn't realize it before so
I sent them both. 😂
>
> ---
>
> @Lifeng, should I check something else than the value of:
>
> - policy1/cpuinfo_max_freq
> - policy1/scaling_max_freq
>
> in order to reproduce the issue fixed by:
>
> commit 1608f0230510 ("cpufreq: Fix re-boost issue after hotplugging
> a CPU")
>
> ?
>
>
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-03-20 10:04 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-03-17 10:17 [PATCH v6 0/4] cpufreq: Introduce boost frequency QoS Pierre Gondois
2026-03-17 10:17 ` [PATCH v6 1/4] cpufreq: Remove per-CPU QoS constraint Pierre Gondois
2026-03-18 11:13 ` Viresh Kumar
2026-03-19 9:30 ` Pierre Gondois
2026-03-20 9:18 ` Viresh Kumar
2026-03-20 9:25 ` Viresh Kumar
2026-03-24 11:39 ` Pierre Gondois
2026-03-25 6:28 ` Viresh Kumar
2026-03-20 10:04 ` zhenglifeng (A) [this message]
2026-03-17 10:17 ` [PATCH v6 2/4] cpufreq: Add boost_freq_req QoS request Pierre Gondois
2026-03-18 2:50 ` zhenglifeng (A)
2026-03-18 7:56 ` Pierre Gondois
2026-03-17 10:17 ` [PATCH v6 3/4] cpufreq: Set policy->min and max as real QoS constraints Pierre Gondois
2026-03-20 10:14 ` Viresh Kumar
2026-03-24 11:40 ` Pierre Gondois
2026-03-25 6:49 ` Viresh Kumar
2026-03-25 16:54 ` Pierre Gondois
2026-03-26 4:26 ` Viresh Kumar
2026-03-17 10:17 ` [RFC PATCH v6 4/4] cpufreq/freq_table: Allow decreasing cpuinfo.max_freq Pierre Gondois
2026-03-20 10:58 ` Viresh Kumar
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=4592550c-6c56-4e71-a989-4e9ca90c97de@huawei.com \
--to=zhenglifeng1@huawei.com \
--cc=gautham.shenoy@amd.com \
--cc=ionela.voinescu@arm.com \
--cc=lenb@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mario.limonciello@amd.com \
--cc=perry.yuan@amd.com \
--cc=pierre.gondois@arm.com \
--cc=rafael@kernel.org \
--cc=ray.huang@amd.com \
--cc=saravanak@kernel.org \
--cc=srinivas.pandruvada@linux.intel.com \
--cc=sumitg@nvidia.com \
--cc=viresh.kumar@linaro.org \
--cc=zhanjie9@hisilicon.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