linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/6] cpufreq: Remove per-CPU QoS constraint

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <1a9295be-49ee-4fc5-acfa-ac353c8c56e5@arm.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2026 14:59:03 +0100
From: Pierre Gondois <pierre.gondois@....com>
To: "zhenglifeng (A)" <zhenglifeng1@...wei.com>
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, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/6] cpufreq: Remove per-CPU QoS constraint

On 1/31/26 04:28, zhenglifeng (A) wrote:
> On 2026/1/26 18:18, 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.
>>
>> This patch reverts of:
>> commit 1608f0230510 ("cpufreq: Fix re-boost issue after hotplugging
>> a CPU")
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Pierre Gondois <pierre.gondois@....com>
>> ---
>>   drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c | 4 ----
>>   1 file changed, 4 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
>> index 4472bb1ec83c7..db414c052658b 100644
>> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
>> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
>> @@ -1481,10 +1481,6 @@ static int cpufreq_policy_online(struct cpufreq_policy *policy,
>>   
>>   		blocking_notifier_call_chain(&cpufreq_policy_notifier_list,
>>   				CPUFREQ_CREATE_POLICY, policy);
>> -	} else {
>> -		ret = freq_qos_update_request(policy->max_freq_req, policy->max);
>> -		if (ret < 0)
>> -			goto out_destroy_policy;
> I think this shouldn't be the first patch. This can be removed only after
> adding boost_freq_req, otherwise it's letting the problem out again.

Would it be ok to change the order of the patches (i.e. patch 1 and 2) 
instead of melding this change in another patch ?