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@arm.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;
 	}
 
 	if (cpufreq_driver->get && has_target()) {
-- 
2.43.0

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@arm.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.

>  	}
>  
>  	if (cpufreq_driver->get && has_target()) {

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@arm.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 ?

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@arm.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@huawei.com>

>