From: Dhananjay Ugwekar <Dhananjay.Ugwekar@amd.com>
To: "Gautham R. Shenoy" <gautham.shenoy@amd.com>,
Naresh Solanki <naresh.solanki@9elements.com>
Cc: Huang Rui <ray.huang@amd.com>,
Mario Limonciello <mario.limonciello@amd.com>,
Perry Yuan <perry.yuan@amd.com>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>,
Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>,
linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] cpufreq/amd-pstate: Refactor max frequency calculation
Date: Fri, 27 Dec 2024 11:19:35 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <057d8f01-c1ee-428c-8c19-80edcf9017bd@amd.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Z2ULvwb1hePiDmwj@BLRRASHENOY1.amd.com>
On 12/20/2024 11:46 AM, Gautham R. Shenoy wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 20, 2024 at 12:51:43AM +0530, Naresh Solanki wrote:
>> The previous approach introduced roundoff errors during division when
>> calculating the boost ratio. This, in turn, affected the maximum
>> frequency calculation, often resulting in reporting lower frequency
>> values.
>>
>> For example, on the Glinda SoC based board with the following
>> parameters:
>>
>> max_perf = 208
>> nominal_perf = 100
>> nominal_freq = 2600 MHz
>>
>> The Linux kernel previously calculated the frequency as:
>> freq = ((max_perf * 1024 / nominal_perf) * nominal_freq) / 1024
>> freq = 5405 MHz // Integer arithmetic.
>>
>> With the updated formula:
>> freq = (max_perf * nominal_freq) / nominal_perf
>> freq = 5408 MHz
>>
>> This change ensures more accurate frequency calculations by eliminating
>> unnecessary shifts and divisions, thereby improving precision.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Naresh Solanki <naresh.solanki@9elements.com>
>>
>> Changes in V2:
>> 1. Rebase on superm1.git/linux-next branch
>> ---
>> drivers/cpufreq/amd-pstate.c | 9 ++++-----
>> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/amd-pstate.c b/drivers/cpufreq/amd-pstate.c
>> index d7b1de97727a..02a851f93fd6 100644
>> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/amd-pstate.c
>> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/amd-pstate.c
>> @@ -908,9 +908,9 @@ static int amd_pstate_init_freq(struct amd_cpudata *cpudata)
>> {
>> int ret;
>> u32 min_freq, max_freq;
>> - u32 nominal_perf, nominal_freq;
>> + u32 highest_perf, nominal_perf, nominal_freq;
>> u32 lowest_nonlinear_perf, lowest_nonlinear_freq;
>> - u32 boost_ratio, lowest_nonlinear_ratio;
>> + u32 lowest_nonlinear_ratio;
>> struct cppc_perf_caps cppc_perf;
>>
>> ret = cppc_get_perf_caps(cpudata->cpu, &cppc_perf);
>> @@ -927,10 +927,9 @@ static int amd_pstate_init_freq(struct amd_cpudata *cpudata)
>> else
>> nominal_freq = cppc_perf.nominal_freq;
>>
>> + highest_perf = READ_ONCE(cpudata->highest_perf);
>> nominal_perf = READ_ONCE(cpudata->nominal_perf);
>> -
>> - boost_ratio = div_u64(cpudata->highest_perf << SCHED_CAPACITY_SHIFT, nominal_perf);
>> - max_freq = (nominal_freq * boost_ratio >> SCHED_CAPACITY_SHIFT);
>
>
> The patch looks obviously correct to me. And the suggested method
> would work because nominal_freq is larger than the nominal_perf and
> thus scaling is really necessary.
>
> Besides, before this patch, there was another obvious issue that we
> were computing the boost_ratio when we should have been computing the
> ratio of nominal_freq and nominal_perf and then multiplied this with
> max_perf without losing precision.
>
> This is just one instance, but it can be generalized so that any
> freq --> perf and perf --> freq can be computed without loss of precision.
>
> We need two things:
>
> 1. The mult_factor should be computed as a ratio of nominal_freq and
> nominal_perf (and vice versa) as they are always known.
>
> 2. Use DIV64_U64_ROUND_UP instead of div64() which rounds up instead of rounding down.
>
> So if we have the shifts defined as follows:
>
> #define PERF_SHIFT 12UL //shift used for freq --> perf conversion
> #define FREQ_SHIFT 10UL //shift used for perf --> freq conversion.
>
> And in amd_pstate_init_freq() code, we initialize the two global variables:
>
> u64 freq_mult_factor = DIV64_U64_ROUND_UP(nominal_freq << FREQ_SHIFT, nominal_perf);
> u64 perf_mult_factor = DIV64_U64_ROUND_UP(nominal_perf << PERF_SHIFT, nominal_freq);
I like this approach, but can we assume the nominal freq/perf values to be the same for
all CPUs, otherwise we would need to make these factors a per-CPU or per-domain(where
all CPUs within a "domain" have the same nominal_freq/perf). At which point the benefit
of caching these ratios might diminish.
Thoughts, Gautham, Mario?
Thanks,
Dhananjay
>
> .. and have a couple of helper functions:
>
> /* perf to freq conversion */
> static inline unsigned int perf_to_freq(perf)
> {
> return (perf * freq_mult_factor) >> FREQ_SHIFT;
> }
>
>
> /* freq to perf conversion */
> static inline unsigned int freq_to_perf(freq)
> {
> return (freq * perf_mult_factor) >> PERF_SHIFT;
> }
>
>
>> + max_freq = div_u64((u64)highest_perf * nominal_freq, nominal_perf);
>
> Then,
> max_freq = perf_to_freq(highest_perf);
> min_freq = perf_to_freq(lowest_non_linear_perf);
>
>
> and so on.
>
> This should just work.
>
>
>>
>> lowest_nonlinear_perf = READ_ONCE(cpudata->lowest_nonlinear_perf);
>> lowest_nonlinear_ratio = div_u64(lowest_nonlinear_perf << SCHED_CAPACITY_SHIFT,
>> --
>
> --
> Thanks and Regards
> gautham.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-12-27 5:49 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-12-19 19:21 Naresh Solanki
2024-12-19 19:32 ` Mario Limonciello
2024-12-19 20:10 ` Naresh Solanki
2024-12-19 20:15 ` Naresh Solanki
2024-12-19 21:08 ` Mario Limonciello
2024-12-20 10:09 ` Naresh Solanki
2024-12-20 6:16 ` Gautham R. Shenoy
2024-12-27 5:49 ` Dhananjay Ugwekar [this message]
2025-01-07 19:06 ` Mario Limonciello
2025-01-08 4:03 ` Dhananjay Ugwekar
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=057d8f01-c1ee-428c-8c19-80edcf9017bd@amd.com \
--to=dhananjay.ugwekar@amd.com \
--cc=gautham.shenoy@amd.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mario.limonciello@amd.com \
--cc=naresh.solanki@9elements.com \
--cc=perry.yuan@amd.com \
--cc=rafael@kernel.org \
--cc=ray.huang@amd.com \
--cc=viresh.kumar@linaro.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
Powered by JetHome