linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/6] cpufreq: Centralize boost freq QoS requests

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <12bcfd60-63f5-4804-b40f-b87ec1a8439e@arm.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2026 14:58:46 +0100
From: Pierre Gondois <pierre.gondois@....com>
To: "zhenglifeng (A)" <zhenglifeng1@...wei.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Jie Zhan <zhanjie9@...ilicon.com>,
 Ionela Voinescu <ionela.voinescu@....com>,
 Christian Loehle <christian.loehle@....com>, sumitg@...dia.com,
 "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
 Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>, Huang Rui <ray.huang@....com>,
 "Gautham R. Shenoy" <gautham.shenoy@....com>,
 Mario Limonciello <mario.limonciello@....com>,
 Perry Yuan <perry.yuan@....com>,
 Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@...ux.intel.com>,
 Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>, Saravana Kannan <saravanak@...nel.org>,
 linux-pm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/6] cpufreq: Centralize boost freq QoS requests

On 1/31/26 05:11, zhenglifeng (A) wrote:
> On 2026/1/26 18:18, Pierre Gondois wrote:
>> policy_set_boost() calls the cpufreq set_boost callback.
>> Update the newly added boost_freq_req request from there:
>> - whenever boost is toggled
>> - to cover all possible paths
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Pierre Gondois<pierre.gondois@....com>
>> ---
>>   drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c | 13 +++++++++++--
>>   1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
>> index c8fb4c6656e94..505da5b00e575 100644
>> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
>> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
>> @@ -603,10 +603,19 @@ static int policy_set_boost(struct cpufreq_policy *policy, bool enable)
>>   	policy->boost_enabled = enable;
>>   
>>   	ret = cpufreq_driver->set_boost(policy, enable);
>> -	if (ret)
>> +	if (ret) {
>>   		policy->boost_enabled = !policy->boost_enabled;
>> +		return ret;
>> +	}
>>   
>> -	return ret;
>> +	ret = freq_qos_update_request(policy->boost_freq_req, policy->cpuinfo.max_freq);
>> +	if (ret < 0) {
>> +		policy->boost_enabled = !policy->boost_enabled;
>> +		cpufreq_driver->set_boost(policy, !policy->boost_enabled);
> !policy->boost_enabled twice.

Yes indeed.