From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-alma10-1.taild15c8.ts.net [100.103.45.18]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 222DD3BFAFA; Wed, 30 Sep 2026 19:45:46 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=100.103.45.18 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1790797547; cv=none; b=PCC8+h/qoE387ueAZT3BQk3ibl8h7o2XfokzUVOUuCvDf/flruL55Uo/RQ0QsbeugYFtejT07VeXUjSrNpiL/Q2Rh2x1m+1HvmcKuOZhPQAAHYs0v0jdRUYeuQ5OaCG/H2jjuTpUgVcpfHwAN5W1y+KF8j7xhd2sbxrxU1FeIRc= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1790797547; c=relaxed/simple; bh=xlPHLHRO9l6SNCL9EgtC878Ze/bscpyWa/omvYb4LeM=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:Cc:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=mPulHEIAI9GO19rnUR660w/S3PkiaBX/euIyUWPupQbnkQYfzndCg9FIBlRj/GYSwQ0maFl9WrvC0YCOsTagrbKoys1lP+pgcpk9YkDUVSHfw1eo4WVNRk1pbWPztAlJfnXLC4Md4Wp442bRkXSDFuItNHqwG45IpTb2qJZ4fu8= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=RQlEKJV3; arc=none smtp.client-ip=100.103.45.18 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="RQlEKJV3" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6E8D61F00898; Wed, 30 Sep 2026 19:45:45 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kernel.org; s=k20260515; t=1790797546; bh=Nv6ZnGf02FGa0/XbP1BxuDpGXmlZsQYrEor5FTFbXgY=; h=Date:Subject:To:Cc:References:From:In-Reply-To; b=RQlEKJV3AEMuPs3Cr4Umu5g9anHi/j2ELE57xNGa+1Tzqw8q5W+Eg6jcaRJS5gOB1 b6BcuI180l38PC+ChlBVgoqrpV79ryGefY397wn4tiFlVTAhf7Fu7cesIgfQ8+VjxH 1lp9eaxAnsReMVbkRJ2bBYBSwB4bZxnOmlED1ymYubUzxGs5MQrbcCth2ed5+ybmc6 GeeTfwmaXtT8qHy/ohwXdr/rhddxbrrCE2G+e8UnCbqKAK1sRBxB0AAQqs+YUvyQDd uHjbTk/G1ppEdjA+oDiZ5yK8Xlp4HuQd4H2OhfhEWBxaIgo4t0EWc+juLiElefmnhK qkgHw+153sjfg== Message-ID: <7104d7ca-9dbc-42ee-bc3d-f1bb95cdb830@kernel.org> Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2026 14:45:44 -0500 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] ACPI: CPPC: Refactor boost ratio handling Content-Language: en-US To: "Rafael J. Wysocki (Intel)" Cc: Christian Loehle , linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, K Prateek Nayak , x86@kernel.org, Mario Limonciello References: <20260924160052.2858456-1-superm1@kernel.org> <20260924160052.2858456-2-superm1@kernel.org> <213bc2ba-2ee4-4a89-9054-3bd953546789@arm.com> <01667c52-284d-47ba-aa9b-2b0ff685610a@kernel.org> From: Mario Limonciello In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On 9/30/26 14:43, Rafael J. Wysocki (Intel) wrote: > On Wed, Sep 30, 2026 at 9:41 PM Mario Limonciello wrote: >> >> On 9/30/26 14:37, Rafael J. Wysocki (Intel) wrote: >>> On Fri, Sep 25, 2026 at 4:54 PM Mario Limonciello wrote: >>>> >>>> On 9/25/26 04:40, Christian Loehle wrote: >>>>> On 9/24/26 17:00, Mario Limonciello (AMD) wrote: >>>>>> From: Mario Limonciello >>>>>> >>>>>> Rename amd_get_boost_ratio_numerator() to amd_get_effective_highest_perf() >>>>>> to better reflect that it returns the effective highest performance value >>>>>> for a CPU, accounting for preferred cores and heterogeneous topologies. >>>>>> >>>>>> Add a new helper amd_get_boost_ratio() for doing both for boost >>>>>> ratio calculations and update callers to use it. >>>>>> >>>>>> This refactoring is needed because on some AMD systems (Zen6+), >>>>>> the boost ratio should be calculated from frequency values rather than >>>>>> performance values. >>>>> >>>>> I think I see why you chose to implement it this way (the x86 APERF / MPERF) >>>>> issue, but I'd still prefer it to be spelled out here why this is necessary. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Do you mean in the commit message, like spin the patch? Or just in this >>>> thread? >>>> >>>> Not all cores will operate at the same frequency and fixed scaling >>>> values from CPPC perf don't apply anymore. >>> >>> Well, CPPC is per-CPU at least in principle, so the above doesn't >>> explain much TBH. >>> >>> It kind of follows from the cover letter that there's something >>> missing in CPPC, so this is a stop-gap thing, but it would be good to >>> put the information from the cover letter to the changelog of this >>> patch. >> >> OK; I'll respin the series with the detail in this commit message. > > Thanks! > > With that, please feel free to add my ACKs to the first two patches in > this series and route it as a whole through the amd-pstate tree. Will do; thanks. > >> And yeah; this is totally stop gap to allow other development that needs >> this. >> >> Once next ACPI spec is out I'll tear out the stop gap and put in the >> right support. > > OK