Message-ID: <20160714100320.GA768@arm.com>
Date:	Thu, 14 Jul 2016 11:03:20 +0100
From:	Alexey Klimov <alexey.klimov@....com>
To:	Al Stone <ahs3@...hat.com>
Cc:	viresh.kumar@...aro.org, ashwin.chaugule@...aro.org,
	rjw@...ysocki.net, lenb@...nel.org, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] Force cppc_cpufreq to report values in KHz to fix
 user space reporting

Hi Al,

On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 11:16:11AM -0600, Al Stone wrote:
> When CPPC is being used by ACPI on arm64, user space tools such as
> cpupower report CPU frequency values from sysfs that are incorrect.
> 
> What the driver was doing was reporting the values given by ACPI tables
> in whatever scale was used to provide them.  However, the ACPI spec
> defines the CPPC values as unitless abstract numbers.  Internal kernel
> structures such as struct perf_cap, in contrast, expect these values
> to be in KHz.  When these struct values get reported via sysfs, the
> user space tools also assume they are in KHz, causing them to report
> incorrect values (for example, reporting a CPU frequency of 1MHz when
> it should be 1.8GHz).
> 
> While the investigation for a long term fix proceeds (several options
> are being explored, some of which may require spec changes or other
> much more invasive fixes), this patch forces the values read by CPPC
> to be read in KHz, regardless of what they actually represent.
> 
> The downside is that this approach has some assumptions:
> 
>    (1) It relies on SMBIOS3 being used, *and* that the Max Frequency
>    value for a processor is set to a non-zero value.
> 
>    (2) It assumes that all processors run at the same speed, or that
>    the CPPC values have all been scaled to reflect relative speed.
>    This patch retrieves the largest CPU Max Frequency from a type 4 DMI
>    record that it can find.  This may not be an issue, however, as a
>    sampling of DMI data on x86 and arm64 indicates there is often only
>    one such record regardless.  Since CPPC is relatively new, it is
>    unclear if the ACPI ASL will always be written to reflect any sort
>    of relative performance of processors of differing speeds.
> 
>    (3) It assumes that performance and frequency both scale linearly.
> 
> For arm64 servers, this may be sufficient, but it does rely on
> firmware values being set correctly.  Hence, other approaches are
> also being considered.
> 
> This has been tested on three arm64 servers, with and without DMI, with
> and without CPPC support.
> 
> Changes for v4:
>     -- Replaced magic constants with #defines (Rafael Wysocki)
>     -- Renamed cppc_unitless_to_khz() to cppc_to_khz() (Rafael Wysocki)
>     -- Replaced hidden initialization with a clearer form (Rafael Wysocki)
>     -- Instead of picking up the first Max Speed value from DMI, we will
>        now get the largest Max Speed; still an approximation, but slightly
>        less subject to error (Rafael Wysocki)
>     -- Kconfig for cppc_cpufreq now depends on DMI, instead of selecting
>        it, in order to make sure DMI is set up properly (Rafael Wysocki)
> 
> Changes for v3:
>     -- Added clarifying commentary re short-term vs long-term fix (Alexey
>        Klimov)
>     -- Added range checking code to ensure proper arithmetic occurs,
>        especially no division by zero (Alexey Klimov)
> 
> Changes for v2:
>     -- Corrected thinko: needed to have DEPENDS on DMI in Kconfig.arm,
>        not SELECT DMI (found by build daemon)
> 
> Signed-off-by: Al Stone <ahs3@...hat.com>
> ---
>  drivers/acpi/cppc_acpi.c    | 106 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---
>  drivers/cpufreq/Kconfig.arm |   2 +-
>  2 files changed, 102 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/cppc_acpi.c b/drivers/acpi/cppc_acpi.c
> index 8adac69..6e6df9c 100644
> --- a/drivers/acpi/cppc_acpi.c
> +++ b/drivers/acpi/cppc_acpi.c
> @@ -40,8 +40,18 @@
>  #include <linux/cpufreq.h>
>  #include <linux/delay.h>
>  #include <linux/ktime.h>
> +#include <linux/dmi.h>
> +
> +#include <asm/unaligned.h>
>  
>  #include <acpi/cppc_acpi.h>
> +
> +/* Minimum struct length needed for the DMI processor entry we want */
> +#define DMI_ENTRY_PROCESSOR_MIN_LENGTH	48
> +
> +/* Offest in the DMI processor structure for the max frequency */
> +#define DMI_PROCESSOR_MAX_SPEED  0x14
> +
>  /*
>   * Lock to provide mutually exclusive access to the PCC
>   * channel. e.g. When the remote updates the shared region
> @@ -709,6 +719,56 @@ static int cpc_write(struct cpc_reg *reg, u64 val)
>  	return ret_val;
>  }
>  
> +static u64 cppc_dmi_khz;
> +
> +static void cppc_find_dmi_mhz(const struct dmi_header *dm, void *private)
> +{
> +	const u8 *dmi_data = (const u8 *)dm;
> +	u16 *mhz = (u16 *)private;
> +
> +	if (dm->type == DMI_ENTRY_PROCESSOR &&
> +	    dm->length >= DMI_ENTRY_PROCESSOR_MIN_LENGTH) {
> +		u16 val = (u16)get_unaligned((const u16 *)
> +				(dmi_data + DMI_PROCESSOR_MAX_SPEED));
> +		*mhz = val > *mhz ? val : *mhz;
> +	}
> +}
> +
> +
> +static u64 cppc_get_dmi_khz(void)
> +{
> +	u16 mhz = 0;
> +
> +	dmi_walk(cppc_find_dmi_mhz, &mhz);
> +
> +	/*
> +	 * Real stupid fallback value, just in case there is no
> +	 * actual value set.
> +	 */
> +	mhz = mhz ? mhz : 1;
> +
> +	return (1000 * mhz);
> +}
> +
> +static u64 cppc_to_khz(u64 min_in, u64 max_in, u64 val)
> +{
> +	/*
> +	 * The incoming val should be min <= val <= max.  Our
> +	 * job is to convert that to KHz so it can be properly
> +	 * reported to user space via cpufreq_policy.
> +	 */
> +	u64 curval = val;
> +	u64 maxf = max_in;
> +	u64 minf = min_in;
> +
> +	/* range check the input values */
> +	curval = curval < minf ? minf : curval;
> +	curval = curval > maxf ? maxf : curval;
> +	minf = minf >= maxf ? maxf - 1 : minf;

In the pedantic world kernel should warn in dmesg about nominal value that is
out of range. Or min being larger than max.
Not really an issue but for debugging purposes..

> +	return ((curval - minf) * cppc_dmi_khz) / (maxf - minf);
> +}
> +
>  /**
>   * cppc_get_perf_caps - Get a CPUs performance capabilities.
>   * @cpunum: CPU from which to get capabilities info.
> @@ -748,17 +808,53 @@ int cppc_get_perf_caps(int cpunum, struct cppc_perf_caps *perf_caps)
>  		}
>  	}
>  
> -	cpc_read(&highest_reg->cpc_entry.reg, &high);
> -	perf_caps->highest_perf = high;
> +	/*
> +	 * Since these values in perf_caps will be used in setting
> +	 * up the cpufreq policy, they must always be stored in units
> +	 * of KHz.  If they are not, user space tools will become very
> +	 * confused since they assume these are in KHz when reading
> +	 * sysfs.
> +	 *
> +	 * NB: there may be better approaches to this problem that, as
> +	 * of this writing, are still being explored.  Ideally, this is
> +	 * a short term solution since correlating CPPC abstract values
> +	 * with CPU frequency may or may not reflect actual performance.
> +	 *
> +	 * The reason longer term solutions are being explored is because
> +	 * this solution requires we make the following assumptions:
> +	 *
> +	 *    (1) It relies on SMBIOS3 being used, *and* that the Max
> +	 *        Frequency value for a processor is set to a non-zero value.
> +	 *
> +	 *    (2) It assumes that all processors run at the same speed, or
> +	 *        that the CPPC values have all been scaled to reflect any
> +	 *        relative differences.  This code retrieves the largest CPU
> +	 *        Max Frequency from a type 4 DMI record that it can find.
> +	 *        This may not be an issue, however, as a sampling of DMI
> +	 *        data on x86 and arm64 indicates there is often only one
> +	 *        such record regardless.
> +	 *
> +	 *    (3) It assumes that performance and frequency both scale
> +	 *        linearly.
> +	 *
> +	 * None of these are particularly horrible assumptions.  But, they
> +	 * are assumptions and ultimately we'd like to be able to report
> +	 * performance without quite so many of them.
> +	 *
> +	 */
> +	cppc_dmi_khz = cppc_get_dmi_khz();
>  
> +	cpc_read(&highest_reg->cpc_entry.reg, &high);
>  	cpc_read(&lowest_reg->cpc_entry.reg, &low);
> -	perf_caps->lowest_perf = low;
> +
> +	perf_caps->highest_perf = cppc_to_khz(low, high, high);
> +	perf_caps->lowest_perf = cppc_to_khz(low, high, low);

Just to check. Do I understand correctly that cpufreq subsystem is populated
with this converted values (policy->min and max), then cpufreq sends request to
set new target_freq in converted units to CPPC that in its turn is not aware
about convertation or do i miss something?
There should be convertation back to abstract scale for cppc to correctly
understand and handle request to set new desired performance, shouldn't it?


>  
>  	cpc_read(&ref_perf->cpc_entry.reg, &ref);
> -	perf_caps->reference_perf = ref;
> +	perf_caps->reference_perf = cppc_to_khz(low, high, ref);
>  
>  	cpc_read(&nom_perf->cpc_entry.reg, &nom);
> -	perf_caps->nominal_perf = nom;
> +	perf_caps->nominal_perf = cppc_to_khz(low, high, nom);
>  
>  	if (!ref)
>  		perf_caps->reference_perf = perf_caps->nominal_perf;
> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/Kconfig.arm b/drivers/cpufreq/Kconfig.arm
> index 14b1f93..b4aae52 100644
> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/Kconfig.arm
> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/Kconfig.arm
> @@ -253,7 +253,7 @@ config ARM_PXA2xx_CPUFREQ
>  
>  config ACPI_CPPC_CPUFREQ
>  	tristate "CPUFreq driver based on the ACPI CPPC spec"
> -	depends on ACPI
> +	depends on ACPI && DMI
>  	select ACPI_CPPC_LIB
>  	default n
>  	help
> --


Best regards,
Alexey

Powered by blists - more mailing lists