From: Christian Loehle <christian.loehle@arm.com>
To: Sumit Gupta <sumitg@nvidia.com>,
rafael@kernel.org, viresh.kumar@linaro.org,
pierre.gondois@arm.com, ionela.voinescu@arm.com,
zhenglifeng1@huawei.com, zhanjie9@hisilicon.com, lenb@kernel.org,
ray.huang@amd.com, mario.limonciello@amd.com, perry.yuan@amd.com,
kprateek.nayak@amd.com, maciej.wieczor-retman@intel.com,
pawel.chmielewski@intel.com, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org,
linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, acpica-devel@lists.linux.dev,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc: linux-tegra@vger.kernel.org, treding@nvidia.com,
jonathanh@nvidia.com, vsethi@nvidia.com, ksitaraman@nvidia.com,
sanjayc@nvidia.com, mochs@nvidia.com, bbasu@nvidia.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 4/5] cpufreq: CPPC: Preserve OSPM-set registers across hotplug and unload
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2026 17:11:43 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <cf4e3153-ff80-4d0d-94f7-572a26f369c1@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20261020121846.691218-5-sumitg@nvidia.com>
On 10/20/26 13:18, Sumit Gupta wrote:
> Values written to OSPM-set CPPC registers via sysfs can be lost in two
> ways:
>
> - Across CPU hotplug: the platform may reset a CPU's registers while it
> is offline.
> - On driver unload: the value the driver wrote is left in the register
> instead of returning to its pre-driver state.
>
> Add a small table-driven mechanism that handles both:
>
> - On init(), capture each register's firmware value before the
> driver programs anything.
> - On offline(), read back each register's current value (whatever was
> last set via sysfs) so it can be reapplied, then restore the firmware
> value.
Sorry for the late suggestion, but all the ospm-set registers I think we can
save ourselves some headache by just saving these at sysfs_store (and not deal
with potential read-errors during offline/suspend (which actually may happen!).
> - On online(), reapply the value captured at offline() after
> reprogramming the performance controls. A failed write to the controls
> does not skip the reapply, as no other path restores these registers.
> - On exit(), nothing is needed, as the core calls offline() first, which
> already restored the firmware values.
>
> Cover the Autonomous Selection (auto_sel), Energy Performance Preference
> (EPP) and Autonomous Activity Window (auto_act_window) registers. Writes
> to EPP and auto_act_window only have meaning while auto_sel is enabled,
> so write auto_sel before them when enabling it and after them when
> disabling it. While autonomous selection stays disabled, the platform may
> ignore those writes.
>
> Suggested-by: Pierre Gondois <pierre.gondois@arm.com>
> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/86780f97-29ee-4a72-b311-38c89434b707@arm.com/
> Signed-off-by: Sumit Gupta <sumitg@nvidia.com>
> ---
> drivers/cpufreq/cppc_cpufreq.c | 176 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
> 1 file changed, 173 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cppc_cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cppc_cpufreq.c
> index 9e1214e1cb0d..1b733f15d641 100644
> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cppc_cpufreq.c
> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cppc_cpufreq.c
> @@ -29,6 +29,166 @@
>
> static struct cpufreq_driver cppc_cpufreq_driver;
>
> +/*
> + * OSPM-set CPPC registers tracked for save/restore. A value the OS wrote is
> + * reapplied from online() across CPU hotplug, and the firmware value is
> + * restored from offline().
> + *
> + * Autonomous Selection (auto_sel) is kept first, as the registers after it
> + * only have meaning while it is enabled.
> + */
> +enum cppc_saved_reg_id {
> + CPPC_SAVED_AUTO_SEL,
> + CPPC_SAVED_EPP,
> + CPPC_SAVED_AUTO_ACT_WINDOW,
> + CPPC_NR_SAVED_REGS,
> +};
> +
> +struct cppc_saved_reg {
> + const char *name;
> + int (*get)(int cpu, u64 *val);
> + int (*set)(int cpu, u64 val);
> +};
> +
> +static const struct cppc_saved_reg cppc_saved_regs[CPPC_NR_SAVED_REGS] = {
> + [CPPC_SAVED_AUTO_SEL] = {
> + .name = "auto_sel",
> + .get = cppc_get_auto_sel,
> + .set = cppc_set_auto_sel,
> + },
> + [CPPC_SAVED_EPP] = {
> + .name = "epp",
> + .get = cppc_get_epp_perf,
> + .set = cppc_set_epp,
> + },
> + [CPPC_SAVED_AUTO_ACT_WINDOW] = {
> + .name = "auto_act_window",
> + .get = cppc_get_auto_act_window,
> + .set = cppc_set_auto_act_window,
> + },
> +};
> +
> +enum cppc_saved_type {
> + CPPC_SAVED_FIRMWARE,
> + CPPC_SAVED_REQUESTED,
> + CPPC_NR_SAVED_TYPES,
> +};
> +
> +/*
> + * Per-policy values saved for each register in cppc_saved_regs[], U64_MAX
> + * if there is none:
> + * CPPC_SAVED_FIRMWARE - value before the driver touched it, captured at
> + * init() and written back when the policy goes
> + * offline
> + * CPPC_SAVED_REQUESTED - value in effect when the policy last went offline,
> + * reapplied at online()
> + */
> +struct cppc_policy_state {
> + u64 regs[CPPC_NR_SAVED_REGS][CPPC_NR_SAVED_TYPES];
> +};
> +
> +static DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct cppc_policy_state, cppc_policy_state);
> +
> +/*
> + * Per-policy state is kept in the per-CPU variable of the first CPU the policy
> + * manages. related_cpus (the policy's full set of CPUs) never changes while the
> + * policy exists, so this CPU (unlike policy->cpu) stays the same across CPU
> + * hotplug, and every callback reaches the same copy.
> + */
> +static struct cppc_policy_state *
> +cppc_cpufreq_policy_state(struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
> +{
> + const struct cpumask *policy_cpus = policy->related_cpus;
> +
> + /*
> + * related_cpus is empty until the core fills it in after init(), so
> + * fall back to policy->cpus, which has the same first CPU.
> + */
> + if (cpumask_empty(policy_cpus))
> + policy_cpus = policy->cpus;
> +
> + return &per_cpu(cppc_policy_state, cpumask_first(policy_cpus));
> +}
> +
> +/*
> + * Save each register's current value, either as the firmware value, captured
> + * before the driver programs anything, or as the requested value, to reapply
> + * at online().
> + */
> +static void cppc_cpufreq_save_regs(struct cpufreq_policy *policy,
> + enum cppc_saved_type saved_type)
> +{
> + struct cppc_policy_state *st = cppc_cpufreq_policy_state(policy);
> + unsigned int cpu = policy->cpu;
> + u64 val;
> + int i;
> +
> + for (i = 0; i < CPPC_NR_SAVED_REGS; i++) {
> + if (cppc_saved_regs[i].get(cpu, &val))
> + val = U64_MAX;
> +
> + st->regs[i][saved_type] = val;
> + if (saved_type == CPPC_SAVED_FIRMWARE)
> + st->regs[i][CPPC_SAVED_REQUESTED] = U64_MAX;
> + }
> +}
> +
> +/*
> + * Write one tracked register, skipping it when there is no saved value.
> + * A register the platform does not allow writing is not an error.
> + */
> +static void cppc_cpufreq_write_saved_reg(unsigned int cpu,
> + enum cppc_saved_reg_id reg, u64 val,
> + enum cppc_saved_type saved_type)
> +{
> + const char *op = (saved_type == CPPC_SAVED_FIRMWARE) ?
> + "restore firmware" : "reapply saved";
> + int ret;
> +
> + if (val == U64_MAX)
> + return;
> +
> + ret = cppc_saved_regs[reg].set(cpu, val);
> + if (ret == -EOPNOTSUPP)
> + return;
> + if (ret)
> + pr_debug("Failed to %s %s=%llu on CPU%u (%d)\n", op,
> + cppc_saved_regs[reg].name, val, cpu, ret);
> +}
> +
> +/*
> + * Apply the saved firmware or requested value to each tracked register.
> + *
> + * Write auto_sel first when the value being applied enables autonomous
> + * selection and last when it disables it, so the writes to the dependent
> + * registers can still take effect. While autonomous selection stays disabled,
> + * the platform may ignore those writes. Do not enable it temporarily to force
> + * them through.
> + */
> +static void cppc_cpufreq_apply_saved_regs(struct cpufreq_policy *policy,
> + enum cppc_saved_type saved_type)
> +{
> + const struct cppc_policy_state *st = cppc_cpufreq_policy_state(policy);
> + unsigned int cpu = policy->cpu;
> + u64 auto_sel, val;
> + int i;
> +
> + auto_sel = st->regs[CPPC_SAVED_AUTO_SEL][saved_type];
> +
> + if (auto_sel)
> + cppc_cpufreq_write_saved_reg(cpu, CPPC_SAVED_AUTO_SEL, auto_sel,
> + saved_type);
> +
> + for (i = CPPC_SAVED_AUTO_SEL + 1; i < CPPC_NR_SAVED_REGS; i++) {
> + val = st->regs[i][saved_type];
> + cppc_cpufreq_write_saved_reg(cpu, i, val, saved_type);
> + }
> +
> + if (!auto_sel)
> + cppc_cpufreq_write_saved_reg(cpu, CPPC_SAVED_AUTO_SEL, auto_sel,
> + saved_type);
> +}
> +
> #ifdef CONFIG_ACPI_CPPC_CPUFREQ_FIE
> static enum {
> FIE_UNSET = -1,
> @@ -800,6 +960,8 @@ static int cppc_cpufreq_cpu_init(struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
> policy->cur = cppc_perf_to_khz(caps, desired_perf);
> cpu_data->perf_ctrls.desired_perf = desired_perf;
>
> + cppc_cpufreq_save_regs(policy, CPPC_SAVED_FIRMWARE);
> +
> ret = cppc_set_perf(cpu, &cpu_data->perf_ctrls);
> if (ret) {
> pr_debug("Err setting perf value:%d on CPU:%d. ret:%d\n",
> @@ -843,12 +1005,14 @@ static void cppc_cpufreq_cpu_exit(struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
> *
> * The platform may have disabled CPPC and reset the performance controls
> * (desired, min and max performance) while the CPU was offline, so re-enable
> - * CPPC and reprogram them.
> + * CPPC and reprogram them. Also reapply the OSPM-set registers that offline()
> + * reset to firmware values.
> *
> * Report failures without returning them, or the core would free the policy and
> * leave the CPU without cpufreq. A failed write to the performance controls is
> - * not fatal, as the governor's next request programs them again. A failed CPPC
> - * enable stops the restore, as the writes that follow may not reach the
> + * not fatal, as the governor's next request programs them again. The OSPM-set
> + * registers are reapplied even then, as no other path restores them. A failed
> + * CPPC enable skips both restores, as the writes that follow may not reach the
> * platform.
> */
> static int cppc_cpufreq_cpu_online(struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
> @@ -896,6 +1060,8 @@ static int cppc_cpufreq_cpu_online(struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
> WRITE_ONCE(cpu_data->perf_limits_valid, true);
> }
>
> + cppc_cpufreq_apply_saved_regs(policy, CPPC_SAVED_REQUESTED);
> +
> out_fie:
> /* Restart what offline() stopped, with a new counter snapshot. */
> cppc_cpufreq_cpu_fie_init(policy);
> @@ -915,6 +1081,10 @@ static int cppc_cpufreq_cpu_offline(struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
> unsigned int cpu = policy->cpu;
> int ret;
>
> + /* Save what the OS set, and leave the platform in its pre-driver state. */
> + cppc_cpufreq_save_regs(policy, CPPC_SAVED_REQUESTED);
> + cppc_cpufreq_apply_saved_regs(policy, CPPC_SAVED_FIRMWARE);
> +
> /*
> * Stop the frequency invariance updates and cancel the pending work, so
> * that no sample spans the offline window. online() restarts them with
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-10-20 16:11 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-10-20 12:18 [PATCH v6 0/5] " Sumit Gupta
2026-10-20 12:18 ` [PATCH v6 1/5] ACPI: CPPC: Order performance-control updates Sumit Gupta
2026-10-20 12:18 ` [PATCH v6 2/5] cpufreq: CPPC: Keep the policy across CPU hotplug Sumit Gupta
2026-10-20 12:18 ` [PATCH v6 3/5] ACPI: CPPC: Make autonomous selection helpers take a u64 Sumit Gupta
2026-10-20 16:10 ` Christian Loehle
2026-10-20 12:18 ` [PATCH v6 4/5] cpufreq: CPPC: Preserve OSPM-set registers across hotplug and unload Sumit Gupta
2026-10-20 16:11 ` Christian Loehle [this message]
2026-10-20 12:18 ` [PATCH v6 5/5] cpufreq: CPPC: Preserve OSPM-set registers across suspend/resume 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=cf4e3153-ff80-4d0d-94f7-572a26f369c1@arm.com \
--to=christian.loehle@arm.com \
--cc=acpica-devel@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=bbasu@nvidia.com \
--cc=ionela.voinescu@arm.com \
--cc=jonathanh@nvidia.com \
--cc=kprateek.nayak@amd.com \
--cc=ksitaraman@nvidia.com \
--cc=lenb@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-tegra@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=maciej.wieczor-retman@intel.com \
--cc=mario.limonciello@amd.com \
--cc=mochs@nvidia.com \
--cc=pawel.chmielewski@intel.com \
--cc=perry.yuan@amd.com \
--cc=pierre.gondois@arm.com \
--cc=rafael@kernel.org \
--cc=ray.huang@amd.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 \
--cc=zhenglifeng1@huawei.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®