From: Mario Limonciello <mario.limonciello@amd.com>
To: Dhananjay Ugwekar <Dhananjay.Ugwekar@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: Tue, 17 Dec 2024 13:44:47 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <a3ef3276-a7d9-41eb-8307-cb0e61eed0b0@amd.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <cfcbf8a4-7254-438a-8b0c-29807e07ed90@amd.com>
On 12/17/2024 00:50, Dhananjay Ugwekar wrote:
> On 12/16/2024 9:09 PM, Mario Limonciello wrote:
>> On 12/16/2024 08:45, Dhananjay Ugwekar wrote:
>>> 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.
>>
>> Well this feels like a bigger problem actually - why is it forcefully bounded at lowest nonlinear freq? Performance is going to be awful at that level
>
> Actually this wont necessarily deteriorate the performance, as we are just restricting
> the min_perf to not go below lowest_nonlinear level. So we are actually ensuring that
> the schedutil doesnt select a des_perf below lowest_nonlinear_perf.
>
> (hence why commit 5d9a354cf839a ("cpufreq/amd-pstate: Set the initial min_freq to lowest_nonlinear_freq") was done),
Sorry re-reading I didn't get my thought out properly, I meant to say
performance is going to be bad BELOW that level. We're in total
agreement here.
>>
>> but shouldn't we "let" people go below that in passive and guided? We do for active.
>
> Yes I agree, we should allow the user to set min limit in the entire frequency range,
> I thought there would've been some reason for restricting this. But I dont see any
> reasoning for this in the blamed commit log as well. I think one reason would be that
> below lowest_nonlinear_freq we dont get real power savings. And schedutil might dip
> into this lower inefficient range if we dont force bound it.
OK I guess to avoid regressions let's leave it as is and do a minimal
change and we can revisit lifting this restriction later after you get
testing done with it to see what actually happens.
>
> Thanks,
> Dhananjay
>
>>
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>
>> I would hope so too; but yeah you're right we don't know 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);
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-12-17 19:44 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
2024-12-16 15:39 ` Mario Limonciello
2024-12-17 6:50 ` Dhananjay Ugwekar
2024-12-17 19:44 ` Mario Limonciello [this message]
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=a3ef3276-a7d9-41eb-8307-cb0e61eed0b0@amd.com \
--to=mario.limonciello@amd.com \
--cc=Dhananjay.Ugwekar@amd.com \
--cc=gautham.shenoy@amd.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pm@vger.kernel.org \
--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®