mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Mario Limonciello <mario.limonciello@amd.com>
To: Christian Loehle <christian.loehle@arm.com>,
	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,
	saket.dumbre@intel.co, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org,
	acpica-devel@lists.linux.dev, linux-tegra@vger.kernel.org
Cc: treding@nvidia.com, jonathanh@nvidia.com, vsethi@nvidia.com,
	ksitaraman@nvidia.com, sanjayc@nvidia.com, mochs@nvidia.com,
	bbasu@nvidia.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 2/3] cpufreq: CPPC: Add ospm_nominal_freq attribute
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2026 15:19:32 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <d6d8912d-cc39-4af7-bb78-4d8095fb094b@amd.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <e539dce2-1b2a-45cc-9ea8-1ab0e0f11972@arm.com>



On 9/28/26 10:19, Christian Loehle wrote:
> On 8/7/26 22:48, Sumit Gupta wrote:
>> OSPM Nominal Performance (ACPI 6.6, Section 8.4.6.1.2.6) lets the OS
>> request a nominal performance level below the platform-reported one. The
>> platform treats performance above that level as boosted and below it as
>> throttled for its power and thermal decisions. A lower value moves that
>> boundary down, so sustained work runs at a lower point while the range
>> above it remains available as boost.
>>
>> Expose it as a per-policy cpufreq attribute in kHz, matching the unit
>> convention of the other frequency attributes:
>>
>>    /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpuX/cpufreq/ospm_nominal_freq
>>
>> The attribute is write-only as the register cannot be read back. Writes
>> are converted with cppc_khz_to_perf() and rejected unless they fall in
>> [Lowest Performance, Nominal Performance].
>>
>> Also track the register in the OSPM-set save/restore table, so a
>> requested value survives CPU hotplug and suspend/resume. The store
>> handler records the request rather than init() capturing a firmware
>> value, and driver unload reverts the register to the platform-reported
>> Nominal Performance.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Sumit Gupta <sumitg@nvidia.com>
>> ---
>>   .../ABI/testing/sysfs-devices-system-cpu      | 24 +++++++
>>   drivers/cpufreq/cppc_cpufreq.c                | 70 +++++++++++++++++--
>>   2 files changed, 90 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-devices-system-cpu b/Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-devices-system-cpu
>> index 82d10d556cc8..59aafcb2af97 100644
>> --- a/Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-devices-system-cpu
>> +++ b/Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-devices-system-cpu
>> @@ -346,6 +346,30 @@ Description:	Performance Limited
>>   
>>   		This file is only present if the cppc-cpufreq driver is in use.
>>   
>> +What:		/sys/devices/system/cpu/cpuX/cpufreq/ospm_nominal_freq
>> +Date:		August 2026
>> +Contact:	linux-pm@vger.kernel.org
>> +Description:	OSPM Nominal Performance (kHz), write-only
> 
> IMO exposing this as write-only feels an awkward interface, when we can just
> return (-EOPNOTSUPP, requested_val, or <unset>)?

I guess since it's tracked in the OSPM set save/restore table your point 
is valid.  It could return an error until it's set and then the value 
that was last set a "check that it got set properly" in case multiple 
software interact with the file.

So to that point I agree with your suggestion.

> 
>> +
>> +		OSPM uses this attribute to request a nominal performance level
>> +		lower than the platform-reported nominal. The platform treats
>> +		performance above this level as boost and below as throttle for
>> +		power and thermal decisions.
>> +
>> +		Write a value in kHz, between the frequencies corresponding to
>> +		Lowest Performance and Nominal Performance. The register cannot
>> +		be read back, so this attribute has no read side.
>> +
>> +		Note that tasks may be migrated from one CPU to another by the
>> +		scheduler's load-balancing algorithm, and if different OSPM
>> +		Nominal Performance values are set for those CPUs (through
>> +		different cpufreq policies), that may lead to undesirable
>> +		outcomes. To avoid such issues it is better to set the same
>> +		value across all policies, or to pin every task potentially
>> +		sensitive to it to a specific CPU.
>> +
>> +		This file is only present if the cppc-cpufreq driver is in use.
>> +
>>   What:		/sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu*/cache/index3/cache_disable_{0,1}
>>   Date:		August 2008
>>   KernelVersion:	2.6.27
>> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cppc_cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cppc_cpufreq.c
>> index 32f38b0c492b..fe714e71826a 100644
>> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cppc_cpufreq.c
>> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cppc_cpufreq.c
>> @@ -33,11 +33,13 @@ static struct cpufreq_driver cppc_cpufreq_driver;
>>    * reapplied from online() across CPU hotplug, and the firmware value is
>>    * restored from offline().
>>    *
>> - * Autonomous Selection (auto_sel) is kept first, as writes to the registers
>> - * listed after it only have meaning while autonomous selection is enabled.
>> + * Autonomous Selection (auto_sel) splits the list: the registers before it are
>> + * independent of it, and those after it have meaning only while autonomous
>> + * selection is enabled. Place a new register on the matching side.
>>    */
>>   enum cppc_saved_reg_id {
>> -	CPPC_SAVED_AUTO_SEL,
>> +	CPPC_SAVED_OSPM_NOMINAL_PERF,
>> +	CPPC_SAVED_AUTO_SEL,	/* Entries below need auto_sel enabled. */
>>   	CPPC_SAVED_EPP,
>>   	CPPC_SAVED_AUTO_ACT_WINDOW,
>>   	CPPC_NR_SAVED_REGS,
>> @@ -50,6 +52,11 @@ struct cppc_saved_reg {
>>   };
>>   
>>   static const struct cppc_saved_reg cppc_saved_regs[CPPC_NR_SAVED_REGS] = {
>> +	/* Write-only: the requested value is tracked in software. */
>> +	[CPPC_SAVED_OSPM_NOMINAL_PERF] = {
>> +		.name = "ospm_nominal_perf",
>> +		.set = cppc_set_ospm_nominal_perf,
>> +	},
>>   	[CPPC_SAVED_AUTO_SEL] = {
>>   		.name = "auto_sel",
>>   		.get = cppc_get_auto_sel,
>> @@ -79,6 +86,9 @@ enum cppc_saved_type {
>>    *                   could not be read
>>    *   requested_val - value in effect when the policy last went offline,
>>    *                   reapplied at online(). U64_MAX if none
>> + *
>> + * A write-only register cannot be read back, so its store handler sets
>> + * firmware_val and requested_val instead of init() and offline().
>>    */
>>   struct cppc_saved_vals {
>>   	u64 firmware_val;
>> @@ -135,7 +145,17 @@ static void cppc_cpufreq_save_regs(struct cpufreq_policy *policy,
>>   		st->suspend_regs_handled = false;
>>   
>>   	for (i = 0; i < CPPC_NR_SAVED_REGS; i++) {
>> -		if (cppc_saved_regs[i].get(cpu, &val))
>> +		const struct cppc_saved_reg *reg = &cppc_saved_regs[i];
>> +
>> +		/*
>> +		 * A write-only register cannot be read back. It has no
>> +		 * firmware value to capture, and its requested value comes
>> +		 * from the store handler, so do not overwrite it here.
>> +		 */
>> +		if (!reg->get && saved_type == CPPC_SAVED_REQUESTED)
>> +			continue;
>> +
>> +		if (!reg->get || reg->get(cpu, &val))
>>   			val = U64_MAX;
>>   
>>   		if (saved_type == CPPC_SAVED_FIRMWARE) {
>> @@ -197,6 +217,12 @@ static void cppc_cpufreq_apply_saved_regs(struct cpufreq_policy *policy,
>>   	u64 auto_sel, val;
>>   	int i;
>>   
>> +	/* Registers before auto_sel do not depend on it. */
>> +	for (i = 0; i < CPPC_SAVED_AUTO_SEL; i++) {
>> +		val = cppc_cpufreq_saved_reg_value(st, i, saved_type);
>> +		cppc_cpufreq_write_saved_reg(cpu, i, val, saved_type);
>> +	}
>> +
>>   	auto_sel = cppc_cpufreq_saved_reg_value(st, CPPC_SAVED_AUTO_SEL,
>>   						saved_type);
>>   
>> @@ -1385,11 +1411,46 @@ static int cppc_get_perf_limited_filtered(int cpu, u64 *perf_limited)
>>   CPPC_CPUFREQ_ATTR_RW_U64(perf_limited, cppc_get_perf_limited_filtered,
>>   			 cppc_set_perf_limited)
>>   
>> +static ssize_t store_ospm_nominal_freq(struct cpufreq_policy *policy,
>> +				       const char *buf, size_t count)
>> +{
>> +	struct cppc_cpudata *cpu_data = policy->driver_data;
>> +	struct cppc_saved_vals *st;
>> +	unsigned int freq_khz;
>> +	u32 perf;
>> +	int ret;
>> +
>> +	ret = kstrtouint(buf, 0, &freq_khz);
>> +	if (ret)
>> +		return ret;
>> +
>> +	perf = cppc_khz_to_perf(&cpu_data->perf_caps, freq_khz);
>> +	if (perf < cpu_data->perf_caps.lowest_perf ||
>> +	    perf > cpu_data->perf_caps.nominal_perf)
>> +		return -EINVAL;
>> +
>> +	ret = cppc_set_ospm_nominal_perf(policy->cpu, perf);
>> +	if (ret)
>> +		return ret;
>> +
>> +	/*
>> +	 * Track the request in software: requested_val is reapplied across
>> +	 * hotplug, and firmware_val makes the register revert to the platform
>> +	 * Nominal on driver unload, since the value cannot be read back.
>> +	 */
>> +	st = &cppc_cpufreq_policy_state(policy)->regs[CPPC_SAVED_OSPM_NOMINAL_PERF];
>> +	st->requested_val = perf;
>> +	st->firmware_val = cpu_data->perf_caps.nominal_perf;
>> +
>> +	return count;
>> +}
>> +
>>   cpufreq_freq_attr_ro(freqdomain_cpus);
>>   cpufreq_freq_attr_rw(auto_select);
>>   cpufreq_freq_attr_rw(auto_act_window);
>>   cpufreq_freq_attr_rw(energy_performance_preference_val);
>>   cpufreq_freq_attr_rw(perf_limited);
>> +cpufreq_freq_attr_wo(ospm_nominal_freq);
>>   
>>   static struct freq_attr *cppc_cpufreq_attr[] = {
>>   	&freqdomain_cpus,
>> @@ -1397,6 +1458,7 @@ static struct freq_attr *cppc_cpufreq_attr[] = {
>>   	&auto_act_window,
>>   	&energy_performance_preference_val,
>>   	&perf_limited,
>> +	&ospm_nominal_freq,
>>   	NULL,
>>   };
>>   
> 


  reply	other threads:[~2026-09-30 20:19 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2026-08-07 21:48 [PATCH v7 0/3] ACPI / cpufreq: CPPC: Add ospm_nominal_perf support Sumit Gupta
2026-08-07 21:48 ` [PATCH v7 1/3] ACPI: " Sumit Gupta
2026-08-07 21:48 ` [PATCH v7 2/3] cpufreq: CPPC: Add ospm_nominal_freq attribute Sumit Gupta
2026-09-28 12:20   ` Pierre Gondois
2026-09-28 15:19   ` Christian Loehle
2026-09-30 20:19     ` Mario Limonciello [this message]
2026-08-07 21:48 ` [PATCH v7 3/3] cpufreq: CPPC: Reflect the OSPM nominal in boost and limits Sumit Gupta
2026-09-25 16:37 ` [PATCH v7 0/3] ACPI / cpufreq: CPPC: Add ospm_nominal_perf support Rafael J. Wysocki (Intel)
2026-09-28 12:20 ` Pierre Gondois

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=d6d8912d-cc39-4af7-bb78-4d8095fb094b@amd.com \
    --to=mario.limonciello@amd.com \
    --cc=acpica-devel@lists.linux.dev \
    --cc=bbasu@nvidia.com \
    --cc=christian.loehle@arm.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-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-pm@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-tegra@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mochs@nvidia.com \
    --cc=pierre.gondois@arm.com \
    --cc=rafael@kernel.org \
    --cc=saket.dumbre@intel.co \
    --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®