mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "zhenglifeng (A)" <zhenglifeng1@huawei.com>
To: Sumit Gupta <sumitg@nvidia.com>
Cc: <rafael@kernel.org>, <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>, <lenb@kernel.org>,
	<robert.moore@intel.com>, <corbet@lwn.net>,
	<pierre.gondois@arm.com>, <rdunlap@infradead.org>,
	<ray.huang@amd.com>, <gautham.shenoy@amd.com>,
	<mario.limonciello@amd.com>, <perry.yuan@amd.com>,
	<ionela.voinescu@arm.com>, <zhanjie9@hisilicon.com>,
	<linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org>,
	<linux-doc@vger.kernel.org>, <acpica-devel@lists.linux.dev>,
	<linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-tegra@vger.kernel.org>,
	<treding@nvidia.com>, <jonathanh@nvidia.com>, <vsethi@nvidia.com>,
	<ksitaraman@nvidia.com>, <sanjayc@nvidia.com>,
	<nhartman@nvidia.com>, <bbasu@nvidia.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 08/11] cpufreq: CPPC: sync policy limits when updating min/max_perf
Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2026 16:20:49 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <9e5d9733-10da-47c1-b265-07c6ac820ea6@huawei.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <2e0e7b5d-e424-4a45-9783-178a1af24ccc@nvidia.com>

On 2026/1/8 21:53, Sumit Gupta wrote:
> 
> On 25/12/25 19:26, zhenglifeng (A) wrote:
>> External email: Use caution opening links or attachments
>>
>>
>> On 2025/12/23 20:13, Sumit Gupta wrote:
>>> When min_perf or max_perf is updated via sysfs in autonomous mode, the
>>> policy frequency limits should also be updated to reflect the new
>>> performance bounds.
>>>
>>> Add @update_policy parameter to cppc_cpufreq_set_mperf_limit() to
>>> control whether policy constraints are synced with HW registers.
>>> The policy is updated only when autonomous selection is enabled to
>>> keep SW limits in sync with HW.
>>>
>>> This ensures that scaling_min_freq and scaling_max_freq values remain
>>> consistent with the actual min/max_perf register values when operating
>>> in autonomous mode.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Sumit Gupta <sumitg@nvidia.com>
>>> ---
>>>   drivers/cpufreq/cppc_cpufreq.c | 35 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------
>>>   1 file changed, 27 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cppc_cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cppc_cpufreq.c
>>> index 1f8825006940..0202c7b823e6 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cppc_cpufreq.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cppc_cpufreq.c
>>> @@ -544,14 +544,20 @@ static void populate_efficiency_class(void)
>>>    * cppc_cpufreq_set_mperf_limit - Set min/max performance limit
>>>    * @policy: cpufreq policy
>>>    * @val: performance value to set
>>> + * @update_policy: whether to update policy constraints
>>>    * @is_min: true for min_perf, false for max_perf
>>> + *
>>> + * When @update_policy is true, updates cpufreq policy frequency limits.
>>> + * @update_policy is false during cpu_init when policy isn't fully set up.
>>>    */
>>>   static int cppc_cpufreq_set_mperf_limit(struct cpufreq_policy *policy, u64 val,
>>> -                                     bool is_min)
>>> +                                     bool update_policy, bool is_min)
>>>   {
>>>        struct cppc_cpudata *cpu_data = policy->driver_data;
>>>        struct cppc_perf_caps *caps = &cpu_data->perf_caps;
>>>        unsigned int cpu = policy->cpu;
>>> +     struct freq_qos_request *req;
>>> +     unsigned int freq;
>>>        u32 perf;
>>>        int ret;
>>>
>>> @@ -571,15 +577,26 @@ static int cppc_cpufreq_set_mperf_limit(struct cpufreq_policy *policy, u64 val,
>>>        else
>>>                cpu_data->perf_ctrls.max_perf = perf;
>>>
>>> +     if (update_policy) {
>>> +             freq = cppc_perf_to_khz(caps, perf);
>>> +             req = is_min ? policy->min_freq_req : policy->max_freq_req;
>>> +
>>> +             ret = freq_qos_update_request(req, freq);
>>> +             if (ret < 0) {
>>> +                     pr_warn("Failed to update %s_freq constraint for CPU%d: %d\n",
>>> +                             is_min ? "min" : "max", cpu, ret);
>>> +                     return ret;
>>> +             }
>>> +     }
>>> +
>> OK. Now I see the necessity of extracting this function. But why not use
>> freq_khz as a input parameter and convert it to perf in this funciton,
>> since you need the freq here?
> 
> That will still need cppc_perf_to_khz to be called so that policy
> has what HW actually delivers. Otherwise, there could be some
> asymmetry.
> Also the clamping is done on perf values. So, if user provides a
> very high freq value then that will get passed to freq_qos and the
> HW register will have actual perf value which doesn't match with qos.
> 
> Either way the conversion chain is:
>   freq_to_perf -> clamp perf -> set perf -> perf_to_freq -> set qos
> It's just a matter of where we place the logic.

Yes, you are right. I missed the clamping. Thanks for the explanation.

> 
> Thank you,
> Sumit Gupta
> 
>>>        return 0;
>>>   }
>>>
>>> -#define cppc_cpufreq_set_min_perf(policy, val) \
>>> -     cppc_cpufreq_set_mperf_limit(policy, val, true)
>>> -
>>> -#define cppc_cpufreq_set_max_perf(policy, val) \
>>> -     cppc_cpufreq_set_mperf_limit(policy, val, false)
>>> +#define cppc_cpufreq_set_min_perf(policy, val, update_policy) \
>>> +     cppc_cpufreq_set_mperf_limit(policy, val, update_policy, true)
>>>
>>> +#define cppc_cpufreq_set_max_perf(policy, val, update_policy) \
>>> +     cppc_cpufreq_set_mperf_limit(policy, val, update_policy, false)
>>>   static struct cppc_cpudata *cppc_cpufreq_get_cpu_data(unsigned int cpu)
>>>   {
>>>        struct cppc_cpudata *cpu_data;
>>> @@ -988,7 +1005,8 @@ static ssize_t store_min_perf(struct cpufreq_policy *policy, const char *buf,
>>>        perf = cppc_khz_to_perf(&cpu_data->perf_caps, freq_khz);
>>>
>>>        guard(mutex)(&cppc_cpufreq_update_autosel_config_lock);
>>> -     ret = cppc_cpufreq_set_min_perf(policy, perf);
>>> +     ret = cppc_cpufreq_set_min_perf(policy, perf,
>>> +                                     cpu_data->perf_ctrls.auto_sel);
>>>        if (ret)
>>>                return ret;
>>>
>>> @@ -1045,7 +1063,8 @@ static ssize_t store_max_perf(struct cpufreq_policy *policy, const char *buf,
>>>        perf = cppc_khz_to_perf(&cpu_data->perf_caps, freq_khz);
>>>
>>>        guard(mutex)(&cppc_cpufreq_update_autosel_config_lock);
>>> -     ret = cppc_cpufreq_set_max_perf(policy, perf);
>>> +     ret = cppc_cpufreq_set_max_perf(policy, perf,
>>> +                                     cpu_data->perf_ctrls.auto_sel);
>>>        if (ret)
>>>                return ret;
>>>
> 


  reply	other threads:[~2026-01-15  8:20 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 44+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2025-12-23 12:12 [PATCH v5 00/11] Enhanced autonomous selection and improvements Sumit Gupta
2025-12-23 12:12 ` [PATCH v5 01/11] cpufreq: CPPC: Add generic helpers for sysfs show/store Sumit Gupta
2025-12-25  3:41   ` zhenglifeng (A)
2026-01-08 13:31     ` Sumit Gupta
2025-12-23 12:12 ` [PATCH v5 02/11] ACPI: CPPC: Clean up cppc_perf_caps and cppc_perf_ctrls structs Sumit Gupta
2026-01-08 13:43   ` Pierre Gondois
2025-12-23 12:12 ` [PATCH v5 03/11] ACPI: CPPC: Add cppc_get_perf() API to read performance controls Sumit Gupta
2025-12-25  8:21   ` zhenglifeng (A)
2026-01-08 13:36     ` Sumit Gupta
2025-12-23 12:13 ` [PATCH v5 04/11] ACPI: CPPC: Extend cppc_set_epp_perf() to support auto_sel and epp Sumit Gupta
2025-12-25  3:56   ` zhenglifeng (A)
2026-01-08 13:39     ` Sumit Gupta
2026-01-16 15:59   ` Pierre Gondois
2025-12-23 12:13 ` [PATCH v5 05/11] ACPI: CPPC: add APIs and sysfs interface for min/max_perf Sumit Gupta
2025-12-25  9:03   ` zhenglifeng (A)
2025-12-23 12:13 ` [PATCH v5 06/11] ACPI: CPPC: add APIs and sysfs interface for perf_limited Sumit Gupta
2025-12-25 12:06   ` zhenglifeng (A)
2026-01-08 14:38     ` Sumit Gupta
2026-01-15  8:01       ` zhenglifeng (A)
2025-12-23 12:13 ` [PATCH v5 07/11] cpufreq: CPPC: Add sysfs for min/max_perf and perf_limited Sumit Gupta
2025-12-24 18:32   ` kernel test robot
2025-12-26  0:20   ` Bagas Sanjaya
2026-01-08 14:30     ` Sumit Gupta
2025-12-23 12:13 ` [PATCH v5 08/11] cpufreq: CPPC: sync policy limits when updating min/max_perf Sumit Gupta
2025-12-25 13:56   ` zhenglifeng (A)
2026-01-08 13:53     ` Sumit Gupta
2026-01-15  8:20       ` zhenglifeng (A) [this message]
2025-12-23 12:13 ` [PATCH v5 09/11] cpufreq: CPPC: sync policy limits when toggling auto_select Sumit Gupta
2025-12-26  2:55   ` zhenglifeng (A)
2026-01-08 14:21     ` Sumit Gupta
2026-01-15  8:57       ` zhenglifeng (A)
2025-12-23 12:13 ` [PATCH v5 10/11] cpufreq: CPPC: make scaling_min/max_freq read-only when auto_sel enabled Sumit Gupta
2025-12-26  3:26   ` zhenglifeng (A)
2026-01-08 14:01     ` Sumit Gupta
2026-01-08 16:46   ` Pierre Gondois
2026-01-09 14:37     ` Sumit Gupta
2026-01-12 11:44       ` Pierre Gondois
2026-01-15 12:32         ` zhenglifeng (A)
2026-01-15 15:22           ` Sumit Gupta
2026-01-16 17:05             ` Pierre Gondois
2026-01-15 15:15         ` Sumit Gupta
2025-12-23 12:13 ` [PATCH v5 11/11] cpufreq: CPPC: add autonomous mode boot parameter support Sumit Gupta
2025-12-26  8:03   ` zhenglifeng (A)
2026-01-08 14:04     ` Sumit Gupta

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=9e5d9733-10da-47c1-b265-07c6ac820ea6@huawei.com \
    --to=zhenglifeng1@huawei.com \
    --cc=acpica-devel@lists.linux.dev \
    --cc=bbasu@nvidia.com \
    --cc=corbet@lwn.net \
    --cc=gautham.shenoy@amd.com \
    --cc=ionela.voinescu@arm.com \
    --cc=jonathanh@nvidia.com \
    --cc=ksitaraman@nvidia.com \
    --cc=lenb@kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-doc@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-pm@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-tegra@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mario.limonciello@amd.com \
    --cc=nhartman@nvidia.com \
    --cc=perry.yuan@amd.com \
    --cc=pierre.gondois@arm.com \
    --cc=rafael@kernel.org \
    --cc=ray.huang@amd.com \
    --cc=rdunlap@infradead.org \
    --cc=robert.moore@intel.com \
    --cc=sanjayc@nvidia.com \
    --cc=sumitg@nvidia.com \
    --cc=treding@nvidia.com \
    --cc=viresh.kumar@linaro.org \
    --cc=vsethi@nvidia.com \
    --cc=zhanjie9@hisilicon.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®