From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com (mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com [148.163.158.5]) (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 CEBAD1FCFEE; Wed, 5 Feb 2025 18:22:43 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=148.163.158.5 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1738779765; cv=none; b=f3om4a1I5hnH61Hv6aayjz2s2oN2+zONWFu8tT4+pn0dJxpCHP+RMfgQX65JJ/poZfBsn1CUYcFlvQqLtQRGeq3GXQX5uECuO4q/QqQaYrGQranxu9rDa/kAU2QDX91RhBr3XTpoVngp5QTOPlJ62xxQ3gYgjjnBYbgOpX6wUKk= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1738779765; c=relaxed/simple; bh=UhKjAEvUlgLqcIBwowVI/5aAQM33TNsjXHHzxCT6W3o=; h=Message-ID:Subject:From:To:Cc:Date:In-Reply-To:References: Content-Type:Mime-Version; b=PsUBQC5UgS7YCNkOhrFfuZL/AppWBrpuQegWdNDwIEGr62bftDtSjyOK5dejIdZE5awcmOWZAiV4JTeHHC6IGHvCYtL68v6eN2ek33UdUrkp/Ns55+TI622CpmsLmo+d4RtOJHJEIFeaZbASE1c9YhO4BhK56FxnTuxRXpAJdLo= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.ibm.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux.ibm.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=ibm.com header.i=@ibm.com header.b=bQixVIb1; arc=none smtp.client-ip=148.163.158.5 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.ibm.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux.ibm.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=ibm.com header.i=@ibm.com header.b="bQixVIb1" Received: from pps.filterd (m0360072.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.18.1.2/8.18.1.2) with ESMTP id 515Gc5FF000853; Wed, 5 Feb 2025 18:22:23 GMT DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ibm.com; h=cc :content-transfer-encoding:content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to; s=pp1; bh=fGyMzg dDHOTQOZby2pCVFXcYnOqjiULTzjKXP6uGg7s=; b=bQixVIb1ecIyMvGOyE1fYs FDQ3opWEf9zwGC75Lu/GMb/YuKYuGroCGMa0C+GXsT9GIblekFRw7vBptAuhEw1f ke0ABxYpd+8y/wc9naTYC17v8jybYZgUWfFnpmoVJg91CdPfOaUyMhHaPsi5VzYw i/qeZb3yIr7Pgd5PjmFJJkrEsxa9MDo9sRDhe2fG5ls074nKPE7ttI+XXzL0GhuM vDbqdOKb+eTddI1LgX7izveGf2uXbPgAejhuU6Ti1p3HFeIfLLD3wpO9S1acg1It v0zuYmYJw9jEqDKKLCs2dp1wE4nMgkEAIsA8L24sWqNJwnfydiz6iw9mq1nleEoA == Received: from ppma21.wdc07v.mail.ibm.com (5b.69.3da9.ip4.static.sl-reverse.com [169.61.105.91]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (PPS) with ESMTPS id 44m3pnu5bk-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 05 Feb 2025 18:22:22 +0000 (GMT) Received: from pps.filterd (ppma21.wdc07v.mail.ibm.com [127.0.0.1]) by ppma21.wdc07v.mail.ibm.com (8.18.1.2/8.18.1.2) with ESMTP id 515GI2nZ024510; Wed, 5 Feb 2025 18:22:22 GMT Received: from smtprelay06.wdc07v.mail.ibm.com ([172.16.1.73]) by ppma21.wdc07v.mail.ibm.com (PPS) with ESMTPS id 44hxxna6vj-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 05 Feb 2025 18:22:22 +0000 Received: from smtpav04.wdc07v.mail.ibm.com (smtpav04.wdc07v.mail.ibm.com [10.39.53.231]) by smtprelay06.wdc07v.mail.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id 515IML5x15598238 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Wed, 5 Feb 2025 18:22:21 GMT Received: from smtpav04.wdc07v.mail.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE8C758054; Wed, 5 Feb 2025 18:22:21 +0000 (GMT) Received: from smtpav04.wdc07v.mail.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9FAF358045; Wed, 5 Feb 2025 18:22:15 +0000 (GMT) Received: from li-34d1fccc-27cd-11b2-a85c-c167793e56f7.ibm.com (unknown [9.171.42.237]) by smtpav04.wdc07v.mail.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Wed, 5 Feb 2025 18:22:15 +0000 (GMT) Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/4] cpufreq: Introduce a more generic way to set default per-policy boost flag From: Aboorva Devarajan To: Viresh Kumar Cc: Lifeng Zheng , rafael@kernel.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linuxarm@huawei.com, jonathan.cameron@huawei.com, zhanjie9@hisilicon.com, lihuisong@huawei.com, fanghao11@huawei.com, gautam@linux.ibm.com Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2025 23:52:12 +0530 In-Reply-To: <20250205050147.hfctwo6aw75rardc@vireshk-i7> References: <20250117101457.1530653-1-zhenglifeng1@huawei.com> <20250117101457.1530653-3-zhenglifeng1@huawei.com> <20250205050147.hfctwo6aw75rardc@vireshk-i7> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.28.5 (3.28.5-26.el8_10) Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 X-Proofpoint-ORIG-GUID: FQvVeqg2XwWm83YKHIXLXaNQ1HYd9V9q X-Proofpoint-GUID: FQvVeqg2XwWm83YKHIXLXaNQ1HYd9V9q X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=baseguard engine=ICAP:2.0.293,Aquarius:18.0.1057,Hydra:6.0.680,FMLib:17.12.68.34 definitions=2025-02-05_06,2025-02-05_03,2024-11-22_01 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 clxscore=1015 lowpriorityscore=0 phishscore=0 malwarescore=0 mlxlogscore=999 spamscore=0 mlxscore=0 suspectscore=0 adultscore=0 priorityscore=1501 bulkscore=0 impostorscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.19.0-2501170000 definitions=main-2502050138 On Wed, 2025-02-05 at 10:31 +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 04-02-25, 22:11, Aboorva Devarajan wrote: > > I noticed that Viresh is working on a similar patch [1] as part of a broader patchset > > to simplify boost handling, which should also resolve this issue. > > > > Should we merge this patch [1] and related patches since this is causing a crash, > > or submit a separate patch to fix this? > > diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c > index d434096b7515..7c1f7f5142da 100644 > --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c > +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c > @@ -1590,7 +1590,8 @@ static int cpufreq_online(unsigned int cpu) > 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()) { > + if (cpufreq_driver->set_boost && > + policy->boost_enabled != cpufreq_boost_enabled()) { > policy->boost_enabled = cpufreq_boost_enabled(); > ret = cpufreq_driver->set_boost(policy, policy->boost_enabled); > if (ret) { > > I think the right fix for now should be something like this. My series > (which will be part of next merge window) can go in separately and > revert this change then (as we won't see this problem then). > > Please send a fix with something like this if it works fine, so Rafael > can apply. > Hi Viresh, Thanks, I have posted a patch for this: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20250205181347.2079272-1-aboorvad@linux.ibm.com/ this should get past the boot-time crash for now, until your patchset to simplify boost handling is merged. Regards, Aboorva