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

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

Message-ID: <8c174633-4005-4e52-bb6b-9e9c6181b12b@huawei.com>
Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2026 15:17:33 +0800
From: "zhenglifeng (A)" <zhenglifeng1@...wei.com>
To: Pierre Gondois <pierre.gondois@....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 2026/2/5 21:59, Pierre Gondois wrote:
> 
> 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 ?
> 

I tested the patch on my machine, and it seems the original problem no
longer exists. So I now think it's OK to revert this commit.

Reviewed-by: Lifeng Zheng <zhenglifeng1@...wei.com>

>