mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Dhananjay Ugwekar <Dhananjay.Ugwekar@amd.com>
To: Mario Limonciello <mario.limonciello@amd.com>,
	"Gautham R . Shenoy" <gautham.shenoy@amd.com>
Cc: Perry Yuan <perry.yuan@amd.com>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 10/15] cpufreq/amd-pstate: Move limit updating code
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2024 20:15:19 +0530	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <5330c947-7bfc-4932-800e-9067a9f78470@amd.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <6ea8c643-6977-4ce2-be1e-b0b0a73e8306@amd.com>

On 12/16/2024 7:51 PM, Mario Limonciello wrote:
> On 12/16/2024 08:16, Dhananjay Ugwekar wrote:
>> Hello Mario,
>>
>> On 12/10/2024 12:22 AM, Mario Limonciello wrote:
>>> The limit updating code in amd_pstate_epp_update_limit() should not
>>> only apply to EPP updates.  Move it to amd_pstate_update_min_max_limit()
>>> so other callers can benefit as well.
>>>
>>> With this move it's not necessary to have clamp_t calls anymore because
>>> the verify callback is called when setting limits.
>>
>> While testing this series, I observed that with amd_pstate=passive + schedutil governor,
>> the scaling_max_freq limits were not being honored and I bisected the issue down to this
>> patch.
>>
>> I went through the code and noticed that in amd_pstate_adjust_perf(), we set the min_perf
>> field in MSR_AMD_CPPC_REQ to "cap_perf" which is equal to cpudata->highest_perf (which is
>> equal to 255 for non-preferred cores systems). This didnt seem logical to me and I changed
>> cap_perf to cpudata->max_limit_perf which gives us the value updated in scaling_max_freq.
>>
>> I think as we removed the redundant clamping code, this pre-existing issue got exposed.
>> The below diff fixes the issue for me.
>>
>> Please let me know your thoughts on this.
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/amd-pstate.c b/drivers/cpufreq/amd-pstate.c
>> index d7b1de97727a..1ac34e3f1fc5 100644
>> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/amd-pstate.c
>> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/amd-pstate.c
>> @@ -699,7 +699,7 @@ static void amd_pstate_adjust_perf(unsigned int cpu,
>>          if (min_perf < lowest_nonlinear_perf)
>>                  min_perf = lowest_nonlinear_perf;
here^^^
>>
>> -       max_perf = cap_perf;
>> +       max_perf = cpudata->max_limit_perf;
>>          if (max_perf < min_perf)
>>                  max_perf = min_perf;
> 
> With this change I think you can also drop the comparison afterwards, as an optimization right?

Umm I think it is possible that scaling_max_freq is set to a value lower than 
lowest_nonlinear_freq in that case this if condition would be needed (as min_perf 
is being lower bounded at lowest_nonlinear_freq at the location highlighted above). 
I would be okay with keeping this check in. 

Also, what is the behavior if max_perf is set to a value lower than min_perf in 
the CPPC_REQ MSR? I guess platform FW would also be smart enough to handle this 
implicitly, but cant say for sure.

> 
> As this is already in superm1.git/linux-next after testing can you please send a patch relative to superm1.git/linux-next branch?

Sure, I'll send out the patch once we finalize on the above if condition.

Regards,
Dhananjay

> 
> Thanks!
> 
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Dhananjay
>>
>>>
>>> Reviewed-by: Gautham R. Shenoy <gautham.shenoy@amd.com>
>>> Signed-off-by: Mario Limonciello <mario.limonciello@amd.com>
>>> ---
>>> v2:
>>>   * Drop lowest_perf variable
>>> ---
>>>   drivers/cpufreq/amd-pstate.c | 28 +++++-----------------------
>>>   1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 23 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/amd-pstate.c b/drivers/cpufreq/amd-pstate.c
>>> index 3a3df67c096d5..dc3c45b6f5103 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/amd-pstate.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/amd-pstate.c
>>> @@ -537,10 +537,6 @@ static void amd_pstate_update(struct amd_cpudata *cpudata, u32 min_perf,
>>>       u32 nominal_perf = READ_ONCE(cpudata->nominal_perf);
>>>       u64 value = prev;
>>>   -    min_perf = clamp_t(unsigned long, min_perf, cpudata->min_limit_perf,
>>> -            cpudata->max_limit_perf);
>>> -    max_perf = clamp_t(unsigned long, max_perf, cpudata->min_limit_perf,
>>> -            cpudata->max_limit_perf);
>>>       des_perf = clamp_t(unsigned long, des_perf, min_perf, max_perf);
>>>         max_freq = READ_ONCE(cpudata->max_limit_freq);
>>> @@ -607,7 +603,7 @@ static int amd_pstate_verify(struct cpufreq_policy_data *policy_data)
>>>     static int amd_pstate_update_min_max_limit(struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
>>>   {
>>> -    u32 max_limit_perf, min_limit_perf, lowest_perf, max_perf, max_freq;
>>> +    u32 max_limit_perf, min_limit_perf, max_perf, max_freq;
>>>       struct amd_cpudata *cpudata = policy->driver_data;
>>>         max_perf = READ_ONCE(cpudata->highest_perf);
>>> @@ -615,12 +611,8 @@ static int amd_pstate_update_min_max_limit(struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
>>>       max_limit_perf = div_u64(policy->max * max_perf, max_freq);
>>>       min_limit_perf = div_u64(policy->min * max_perf, max_freq);
>>>   -    lowest_perf = READ_ONCE(cpudata->lowest_perf);
>>> -    if (min_limit_perf < lowest_perf)
>>> -        min_limit_perf = lowest_perf;
>>> -
>>> -    if (max_limit_perf < min_limit_perf)
>>> -        max_limit_perf = min_limit_perf;
>>> +    if (cpudata->policy == CPUFREQ_POLICY_PERFORMANCE)
>>> +        min_limit_perf = min(cpudata->nominal_perf, max_limit_perf);
>>>         WRITE_ONCE(cpudata->max_limit_perf, max_limit_perf);
>>>       WRITE_ONCE(cpudata->min_limit_perf, min_limit_perf);
>>> @@ -1562,28 +1554,18 @@ static void amd_pstate_epp_cpu_exit(struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
>>>   static int amd_pstate_epp_update_limit(struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
>>>   {
>>>       struct amd_cpudata *cpudata = policy->driver_data;
>>> -    u32 max_perf, min_perf;
>>>       u64 value;
>>>       s16 epp;
>>>   -    max_perf = READ_ONCE(cpudata->highest_perf);
>>> -    min_perf = READ_ONCE(cpudata->lowest_perf);
>>>       amd_pstate_update_min_max_limit(policy);
>>>   -    max_perf = clamp_t(unsigned long, max_perf, cpudata->min_limit_perf,
>>> -            cpudata->max_limit_perf);
>>> -    min_perf = clamp_t(unsigned long, min_perf, cpudata->min_limit_perf,
>>> -            cpudata->max_limit_perf);
>>>       value = READ_ONCE(cpudata->cppc_req_cached);
>>>   -    if (cpudata->policy == CPUFREQ_POLICY_PERFORMANCE)
>>> -        min_perf = min(cpudata->nominal_perf, max_perf);
>>> -
>>>       value &= ~(AMD_CPPC_MAX_PERF_MASK | AMD_CPPC_MIN_PERF_MASK |
>>>              AMD_CPPC_DES_PERF_MASK);
>>> -    value |= FIELD_PREP(AMD_CPPC_MAX_PERF_MASK, max_perf);
>>> +    value |= FIELD_PREP(AMD_CPPC_MAX_PERF_MASK, cpudata->max_limit_perf);
>>>       value |= FIELD_PREP(AMD_CPPC_DES_PERF_MASK, 0);
>>> -    value |= FIELD_PREP(AMD_CPPC_MIN_PERF_MASK, min_perf);
>>> +    value |= FIELD_PREP(AMD_CPPC_MIN_PERF_MASK, cpudata->min_limit_perf);
>>>         /* Get BIOS pre-defined epp value */
>>>       epp = amd_pstate_get_epp(cpudata, value);
>>
> 


  reply	other threads:[~2024-12-16 14:45 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 25+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2024-12-09 18:52 [PATCH v3 00/15] amd-pstate fixes and improvements for 6.14 Mario Limonciello
2024-12-09 18:52 ` [PATCH v3 01/15] cpufreq/amd-pstate: Store the boost numerator as highest perf again Mario Limonciello
2024-12-09 18:52 ` [PATCH v3 02/15] cpufreq/amd-pstate: Use boost numerator for upper bound of frequencies Mario Limonciello
2024-12-09 18:52 ` [PATCH v3 03/15] cpufreq/amd-pstate: Add trace event for EPP perf updates Mario Limonciello
2024-12-09 18:52 ` [PATCH v3 04/15] cpufreq/amd-pstate: convert mutex use to guard() Mario Limonciello
2024-12-09 18:52 ` [PATCH v3 05/15] cpufreq/amd-pstate: Drop cached epp_policy variable Mario Limonciello
2024-12-09 18:52 ` [PATCH v3 06/15] cpufreq/amd-pstate: Use FIELD_PREP and FIELD_GET macros Mario Limonciello
2024-12-09 18:52 ` [PATCH v3 07/15] cpufreq/amd-pstate: Only update the cached value in msr_set_epp() on success Mario Limonciello
2024-12-09 18:52 ` [PATCH v3 08/15] cpufreq/amd-pstate: store all values in cpudata struct in khz Mario Limonciello
2024-12-09 18:52 ` [PATCH v3 09/15] cpufreq/amd-pstate: Change amd_pstate_update_perf() to return an int Mario Limonciello
2024-12-09 18:52 ` [PATCH v3 10/15] cpufreq/amd-pstate: Move limit updating code Mario Limonciello
2024-12-16 14:16   ` Dhananjay Ugwekar
2024-12-16 14:21     ` Mario Limonciello
2024-12-16 14:45       ` Dhananjay Ugwekar [this message]
2024-12-16 15:39         ` Mario Limonciello
2024-12-17  6:50           ` Dhananjay Ugwekar
2024-12-17 19:44             ` Mario Limonciello
2024-12-19  4:22               ` Gautham R. Shenoy
2024-12-19  4:24               ` Dhananjay Ugwekar
2024-12-09 18:52 ` [PATCH v3 11/15] cpufreq/amd-pstate: Cache EPP value and use that everywhere Mario Limonciello
2024-12-09 18:52 ` [PATCH v3 12/15] cpufreq/amd-pstate: Always write EPP value when updating perf Mario Limonciello
2024-12-10 11:08   ` Gautham R. Shenoy
2024-12-09 18:52 ` [PATCH v3 13/15] cpufreq/amd-pstate: Drop ret variable from amd_pstate_set_energy_pref_index() Mario Limonciello
2024-12-09 18:52 ` [PATCH v3 14/15] cpufreq/amd-pstate: Set different default EPP policy for Epyc and Ryzen Mario Limonciello
2024-12-09 18:52 ` [PATCH v3 15/15] cpufreq/amd-pstate: Drop boost_state variable Mario Limonciello

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=5330c947-7bfc-4932-800e-9067a9f78470@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=perry.yuan@amd.com \
    /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

all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®