Re: [PATCH] ACPI: RISC-V: CPPC: Implement cpc_read_ffh_fb_ctrs()

[Jie Zhan <zhanjie9@hisilicon.com>]

On 9/2/2026 4:34 PM, Yufan Dou wrote:
> On RISC-V, each cpc_read_ffh() for a CSR-type FFH register sends a
> separate IPI to the target hart via smp_call_function_single().
> cppc_get_perf_ctrs() therefore samples the delivered and reference
> counters in two separate IPIs, at two different instants. The skew
> between the two sampling points distorts the delivered/reference
> ratio and thus the frequency reported by cpufreq.
> 
> Implement the cpc_read_ffh_fb_ctrs() hook to read both CSR counters
> back-to-back in a single IPI, which narrows the sampling window to a
> few instructions and halves the number of cross-CPU calls. This
> improves the accuracy of the reported frequency in the same way as
> the arm64 implementation of the hook, which reads both AMU counters
> in a single counters_read_on_cpu() call.
> 
> SBI-type FFH registers still fall back to individual reads, since
> pairing them would not reduce the number of SBI calls on the target
> hart.
> 
> Testing was performed while CPU1 was kept busy with:
> 
>   # stress-ng --cpu 1 --taskset 1
> 
> On a CPU with cpuinfo_max_freq of 3000000 kHz:
> 
> Before:
> 
>   Maximum observed cpuinfo_cur_freq: 3201369 kHz
>   Maximum observed error:            +201369 kHz (+6.71%)
> 
> After:
> 
>   Maximum observed cpuinfo_cur_freq: 3009646 kHz
>   Maximum observed error:              +9646 kHz (+0.32%)
> 
> The maximum observed error is reduced by 95.2%.
Glad to see that works for RISC-V as well.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Yufan Dou <douyufan@picoheart.com>
> ---
>  drivers/acpi/riscv/cppc.c | 47 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 47 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/riscv/cppc.c b/drivers/acpi/riscv/cppc.c
> index 42c1a9052470..2ca98fa69e9a 100644
> --- a/drivers/acpi/riscv/cppc.c
> +++ b/drivers/acpi/riscv/cppc.c
> @@ -85,6 +85,20 @@ static void cppc_ffh_csr_write(void *write_data)
>  	data->ret.error = -EINVAL;
>  }
>  
> +struct sbi_cppc_fb_ctrs_data {
> +	struct sbi_cppc_data first;
> +	struct sbi_cppc_data second;
> +};
> +
> +static void cppc_ffh_csr_read_fb_ctrs(void *read_data)
> +{
> +	struct sbi_cppc_fb_ctrs_data *data = read_data;
> +
> +	cppc_ffh_csr_read(&data->first);
> +	if (!data->first.ret.error)
> +		cppc_ffh_csr_read(&data->second);
> +}
> +
>  /*
>   * Refer to drivers/acpi/cppc_acpi.c for the description of the functions
>   * below.
> @@ -125,6 +139,39 @@ int cpc_read_ffh(int cpu, struct cpc_reg *reg, u64 *val)
>  	return -EINVAL;
>  }
>  
> +int cpc_read_ffh_fb_ctrs(int cpu, struct cpc_reg *reg1, u64 *val1,
> +			 struct cpc_reg *reg2, u64 *val2)
> +{
> +	struct sbi_cppc_fb_ctrs_data data;
> +	int ret;
> +
> +	if (WARN_ON_ONCE(irqs_disabled()))
> +		return -EPERM;
AFAICS, this may cause CPPC FIE to constantly fail to read counters because
FIE runs in hardirq context.

Any test on CPPC FIE?
> +
> +	/* Only CSR counters can be paired within a single IPI. */
> +	if (FFH_CPPC_TYPE(reg1->address) != FFH_CPPC_CSR ||
> +	    FFH_CPPC_TYPE(reg2->address) != FFH_CPPC_CSR)
> +		return -EOPNOTSUPP;
> +
> +	data.first.reg = FFH_CPPC_CSR_NUM(reg1->address);
> +	data.second.reg = FFH_CPPC_CSR_NUM(reg2->address);
> +
> +	ret = smp_call_function_single(cpu, cppc_ffh_csr_read_fb_ctrs,
> +				       &data, 1);
> +	if (ret)
> +		return ret;
> +
> +	if (data.first.ret.error)
> +		return data.first.ret.error;
> +	if (data.second.ret.error)
> +		return data.second.ret.error;
> +
> +	*val1 = data.first.ret.value;
> +	*val2 = data.second.ret.value;
> +
> +	return 0;
> +}
> +
>  int cpc_write_ffh(int cpu, struct cpc_reg *reg, u64 val)
>  {
>  	struct sbi_cppc_data data;
> 
> base-commit: 89a312991dc6e638a36adc43ccb91dbc25504c04