From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.2 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 54168C2BB55 for ; Thu, 16 Apr 2020 12:54:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 34ED9206D6 for ; Thu, 16 Apr 2020 12:54:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S2894507AbgDPMyY (ORCPT ); Thu, 16 Apr 2020 08:54:24 -0400 Received: from mga07.intel.com ([134.134.136.100]:56523 "EHLO mga07.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S2894377AbgDPMyU (ORCPT ); Thu, 16 Apr 2020 08:54:20 -0400 IronPort-SDR: FojiQLcyoHzbKNpbMoGB+kduzJnxfbIk+mw2YWYxSoFaEse2ZJf30vOr/bj/XJIFYQtFrJvHW7 /3nUaOxKhthw== X-Amp-Result: SKIPPED(no attachment in message) X-Amp-File-Uploaded: False Received: from orsmga004.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.38]) by orsmga105.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 16 Apr 2020 05:54:17 -0700 IronPort-SDR: 2TWSUvSo2BpQ7WsbpwBWIS7QOg1aMl494NOtDrQ0w9oEj0roNF0ut0BpZBlr0jyuB+BJyENMYL TB/ez5YBnYOA== X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.72,391,1580803200"; d="scan'208";a="400659843" Received: from likexu-mobl1.ccr.corp.intel.com (HELO [10.249.170.42]) ([10.249.170.42]) by orsmga004-auth.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 16 Apr 2020 05:54:15 -0700 Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86, smpboot: Disable frequency invariance when it's unsupported To: Giovanni Gherdovich Cc: Peter Zijlstra , Ingo Molnar , Doug Smythies , "Rafael J . Wysocki" , LKML References: <20200416020700.167294-1-like.xu@linux.intel.com> <1587017284.32139.20.camel@suse.cz> <1587026430.32139.29.camel@suse.cz> From: Like Xu Organization: Intel OTC Message-ID: Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2020 20:54:12 +0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1587026430.32139.29.camel@suse.cz> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 2020/4/16 16:40, Giovanni Gherdovich wrote: > On Thu, 2020-04-16 at 15:01 +0800, Like Xu wrote: >> On 2020/4/16 14:08, Giovanni Gherdovich wrote: >>> [...] >>> I've just sent fixes for these two problems here: >>> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20200416054745.740-1-ggherdovich@suse.cz/ >> >> Hence the "less than 4 cores" comment is weird for C6562 >> but the use of "1C turbo" looks good to me. > > Right, your C6562 has 24 cores, (I think) it doesn't support turbo at all, > declares 1C turbo equal to the base frequency and all other turbo ratios (2C, > 4C etc) as zero. > > The commit message of the fix I sent doesn't describe exactly your situation > but the patch addresses your case nonetheless. Some more comments below. > > On Thu, 2020-04-16 at 15:01 +0800, Like Xu wrote: >> On 2020/4/16 14:08, Giovanni Gherdovich wrote: >>> [...] >>> Hello Like Xu, >>> >>> thanks for reporting this and for the patch. My preferred solution for when >>> the 4 cores turbo freq is detected as zero would be to look for the 1 core turbo >>> frequency, as we're likely on a machine with less than 4 cores. Is that the >>> case on your Atom C6562? I couldn't find it on ark.intel.com. >> >> The Atom C6562 is "24 cores" based on >> https://www.intel.com/content/dam/www/public/us/en/documents/product-briefs/atom-p5900-product-brief.pdf >> >> #define MSR_PLATFORM_INFO 0x000000ce >> >> the value for this msr is 80820f9801600 >> >> #define MSR_TURBO_RATIO_LIMIT 0x000001ad >> >> the value for this msr is 16 >> >> I know you didn't test your feature on this platform, >> but combinations of other various values are also possible >> (unless it's made clear in the specification). > > That's an interesting CPU; let me indulge in a couple of comments/questions > for my own curiosity. >>>From the document you link, the product name in the Intel catalogue seems to > be Atom P5962B. Apparently it belongs to the "P Series" just launched: > https://ark.intel.com/content/www/us/en/ark/products/series/202693/intel-atom-processor-p-series.html > and your product brief suggests it's meant for installation in 5G base stations. > > 1) Can you share the output of "turbostat --interval 1 sleep 0"? I'm > interested in the headers of the output, where all the various pm-related > MSRs are decoded. > I couldn't disclose more information about this. > 2) Despite not being in the Intel SDM, I was under the assumption that all > Intel CPUs declare the "all-cores turbo" frequency, but it's not the case > for this one. Eg: if you have 24 cores, somewhere in your MSRs I'd expect > to find "24C turbo" (or even "30C turbo", anything greater or equal than 24). > My understanding from > https://ark.intel.com/content/www/us/en/ark/products/202682/intel-atom-processor-p5962b-27m-cache-2-20-ghz.html > is that this CPU doesn't support turbo boost at all; in other CPUs without > turbo I've seen MSRs saying the all-cores turbo freq is equal to the base > freq (for compatibility I suppose). Here MSR_TURBO_RATIO_LIMIT says that 1C > turbo is the same as base frequency (2.2GHz), but turbo for larger sets of > cores is declared as zero, which I find a little odd. That's odd and we could only rely on the Intel specification about the assumption "Intel CPUs declare the all-cores turbo frequency" and I may report this issue if something does mismatch. > > 3) The parsing of MSRs in the frequency invariance code is modeled after > turbostat, and classifies CPUs in 5 groups: Atom up to Goldmont, Atom from > Goldmont onwards, Xeon Phi, Xeon Scalable Processors onwards and "generic > Core". As you've already found out from where your panic happens, your Atom > falls into the "generic Core" category (function core_set_max_freq_ratio()), > but given that it's an Atom and it's been released this very quarter I'd > have guessed it to behave like a Goldmont. Something for me to keep in mind. It's INTEL_FAM6_ATOM_TREMONT or INTEL_FAM6_ATOM_TREMONT_D. Thanks, Like Xu > > > Thanks, > Giovanni Gherdovich >