Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::3:7 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::3:7;
Date:   Thu, 14 Dec 2023 11:13:07 +0530
From:   Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
To:     Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>
Cc:     catalin.marinas@arm.com, will@kernel.org, sudeep.holla@arm.com,
        rafael@kernel.org, agross@kernel.org, andersson@kernel.org,
        konrad.dybcio@linaro.org, mingo@redhat.com, peterz@infradead.org,
        juri.lelli@redhat.com, dietmar.eggemann@arm.com,
        rostedt@goodmis.org, bsegall@google.com, mgorman@suse.de,
        bristot@redhat.com, vschneid@redhat.com, lukasz.luba@arm.com,
        rui.zhang@intel.com, mhiramat@kernel.org,
        daniel.lezcano@linaro.org, amit.kachhap@gmail.com,
        linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-trace-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] cpufreq: Add a cpufreq pressure feedback for the
 scheduler
Message-ID: <20231214054307.axl33gagxacidjbn@vireshk-i7>
References: <20231212142730.998913-1-vincent.guittot@linaro.org>
 <20231212142730.998913-2-vincent.guittot@linaro.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20231212142730.998913-2-vincent.guittot@linaro.org>
Precedence: bulk

On 12-12-23, 15:27, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> @@ -2618,6 +2663,9 @@ static int cpufreq_set_policy(struct cpufreq_policy *policy,
>  	policy->max = __resolve_freq(policy, policy->max, CPUFREQ_RELATION_H);
>  	trace_cpu_frequency_limits(policy);
>  
> +	cpus = policy->related_cpus;
> +	cpufreq_update_pressure(cpus, policy->max);
> +
>  	policy->cached_target_freq = UINT_MAX;

One more question, why are you doing this from cpufreq_set_policy ? If
due to cpufreq cooling or from userspace, we end up limiting the
maximum possible frequency, will this routine always get called ?

-- 
viresh