Message-ID: <CAL_Jsq+TJEMGw-xMMo+Zr+4_PZ+e7-APXRNzi7_XEkXgTaOOCA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 12 Oct 2020 08:59:20 -0500
From:   Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>
To:     Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@....com>
Cc:     Nicola Mazzucato <nicola.mazzucato@....com>,
        Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
        Ionela Voinescu <ionela.voinescu@....com>,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        "open list:THERMAL" <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
        Viresh Kumar <vireshk@...nel.org>,
        Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>, chris.redpath@....com,
        Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@....com>,
        linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] [RFC] CPUFreq: Add support for cpu-perf-dependencies

+Stephen for clock issues

On Mon, Oct 12, 2020 at 5:23 AM Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@....com> wrote:
>
> Hi Rob,
>
> On 10/9/20 3:01 PM, Rob Herring wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 09, 2020 at 12:10:03PM +0100, Nicola Mazzucato wrote:
> >> Hi Viresh, I'm glad it helped.
> >>
> >> Please find below my reply.
> >>
> >> On 10/9/20 6:39 AM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> >>> On 08-10-20, 17:00, Nicola Mazzucato wrote:
> >>>> On 10/8/20 4:03 PM, Ionela Voinescu wrote:
> >>>>> Hi Viresh,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Thursday 08 Oct 2020 at 16:32:41 (+0530), Viresh Kumar wrote:
> >>>>>> On 07-10-20, 13:58, Nicola Mazzucato wrote:
> >>>>>>> Hi Viresh,
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> performance controls is what is exposed by the firmware through a protocol that
> >>>>>>> is not capable of describing hardware (say SCMI). For example, the firmware can
> >>>>>>> tell that the platform has N controls, but it can't say to which hardware they
> >>>>>>> are "wired" to. This is done in dt, where, for example, we map these controls
> >>>>>>> to cpus, gpus, etc.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Let's focus on cpus.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Normally we would have N of performance controls (what comes from f/w)
> >>>>>>> that that correspond to hardware clock/dvfs domains.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> However, some firmware implementations might benefit from having finer
> >>>>>>> grained information about the performance requirements (e.g.
> >>>>>>> per-CPU) and therefore choose to present M performance controls to the
> >>>>>>> OS. DT would be adjusted accordingly to "wire" these controls to cpus
> >>>>>>> or set of cpus.
> >>>>>>> In this scenario, the f/w will make aggregation decisions based on the
> >>>>>>> requests it receives on these M controls.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Here we would have M cpufreq policies which do not necessarily reflect the
> >>>>>>> underlying clock domains, thus some s/w components will underperform
> >>>>>>> (EAS and thermal, for example).
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> A real example would be a platform in which the firmware describes the system
> >>>>>>> having M per-cpu control, and the cpufreq subsystem will have M policies while
> >>>>>>> in fact these cpus are "performance-dependent" each other (e.g. are in the same
> >>>>>>> clock domain).
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> If the CPUs are in the same clock domain, they must be part of the
> >>>>>> same cpufreq policy.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> But cpufreq does not currently support HW_ALL (I'm using the ACPI
> >>>>> coordination type to describe the generic scenario of using hardware
> >>>>> aggregation and coordination when establishing the clock rate of CPUs).
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Adding support for HW_ALL* will involve either bypassing some
> >>>>> assumptions around cpufreq policies or making core cpufreq changes.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> In the way I see it, support for HW_ALL involves either:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>   - (a) Creating per-cpu policies in order to allow each of the CPUs to
> >>>>>     send their own frequency request to the hardware which will do
> >>>>>     aggregation and clock rate decision at the level of the clock
> >>>>>     domain. The PSD domains (ACPI) and the new DT binding will tell
> >>>>>     which CPUs are actually in the same clock domain for whomever is
> >>>>>     interested, despite those CPUs not being in the same policy.
> >>>>>     This requires the extra mask that Nicola introduced.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>   - (b) Making deep changes to cpufreq (core/governors/drivers) to allow:
> >>>>>     - Governors to stop aggregating (usually max) the information
> >>>>>       for each of the CPUs in the policy and convey to the core
> >>>>>       information for each CPU.
> >>>>>     - Cpufreq core to be able to receive and pass this information
> >>>>>       down to the drivers.
> >>>>>     - Drivers to be able to have some per cpu structures to hold
> >>>>>       frequency control (let's say SCP fast channel addresses) for
> >>>>>       each of the CPUs in the policy. Or have these structures in the
> >>>>>       cpufreq core/policy, to avoid code duplication in drivers.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Therefore (a) is the least invasive but we'll be bypassing the rule
> >>>>> above. But to make that rule stick we'll have to make invasive cpufreq
> >>>>> changes (b).
> >>>>
> >>>> Regarding the 'rule' above of one cpufreq policy per clock domain, I would like
> >>>> to share my understanding on it. Perhaps it's a good opportunity to shed some light.
> >>>>
> >>>> Looking back in the history of CPUFreq, related_cpus was originally designed
> >>>> to hold the map of cpus within the same clock. Later on, the meaning of this
> >>>> cpumask changed [1].
> >>>> This led to the introduction of a new cpumask 'freqdomain_cpus'
> >>>> within acpi-cpufreq to keep the knowledge of hardware clock domains for
> >>>> sysfs consumers since related_cpus was not suitable anymore for this.
> >>>> Further on, this cpumask was assigned to online+offline cpus within the same clk
> >>>> domain when sw coordination is in use [2].
> >>>>
> >>>> My interpretation is that there is no guarantee that related_cpus holds the
> >>>> 'real' hardware clock implementation. As a consequence, it is not true anymore
> >>>> that cpus that are in the same clock domain will be part of the same
> >>>> policy.
> >>>>
> >>>> This guided me to think it would be better to have a cpumask which always holds
> >>>> the real hw clock domains in the policy.
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> This is my current understanding and I'm leaning towards (a). What do
> >>>>> you think?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> *in not so many words, this is what these patches are trying to propose,
> >>>>> while also making sure it's supported for both ACPI and DT.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> BTW, thank you for your effort in making sense of this!
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Regards,
> >>>>> Ionela.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> This could be a platform where per-cpu and perf-dependencies will be used:
> >>>>
> >>>> CPU:              0    1    2    3    4    5    6    7
> >>>> Type:             A    A    A    A    B    B    B    B
> >>>> Cluster:         [                                    ]
> >>>> perf-controls:   [  ] [  ] [  ] [ ]  [ ]  [ ]  [ ]  [ ]
> >>>> perf-dependency: [                ]  [                ]
> >>>> HW clock:        [                ]  [                ]
> >>>>
> >>>> The firmware will present 8 controls to the OS and each control is mapped to a
> >>>> cpu device via the standard dt. This is done so we can achieve hw coordination.
> >>>> What is required in these systems is to present to OS the information of which
> >>>> cpus belong to which clock domain. In other words, when hw coordinates we don't
> >>>> have any way at present in dt to understand how these cpus are dependent
> >>>> each other, from performance perspective (as opposed to ACPI where we have
> >>>> _PSD). Hence my proposal for the new cpu-perf-dependencies.
> >>>> This is regardless whether we decide to go for either a policy per-cpu or a
> >>>> policy per-domain.
> >>>>
> >>>> Hope it helps.
> >>>
> >>> Oh yes, I get it now. Finally. Thanks for helping me out :)
> >>>
> >>> So if I can say all this stuff in simple terms, this is what it will
> >>> be like:
> >>>
> >>> - We don't want software aggregation of frequencies and so we need to
> >>>    have per-cpu policies even when they share their clock lines.
> >>>
> >>> - But we still need a way for other frameworks to know which CPUs
> >>>    share the clock lines (that's what the perf-dependency is all about,
> >>>    right ?).
> >>>
> >>> - We can't get it from SCMI, but need a DT based solution.
> >>>
> >>> - Currently for the cpufreq-case we relied for this on the way OPP
> >>>    tables for the CPUs were described. i.e. the opp-table is marked as
> >>>    "shared" and multiple CPUs point to it.
> >>>
> >>> - I wonder if we can keep using that instead of creating new bindings
> >>>    for exact same stuff ? Though the difference here would be that the
> >>>    OPP may not have any other entries.
> >>
> >> I thought about it and looked for other platforms' DT to see if can reuse
> >> existing opp information. Unfortunately I don't think it is optimal. The reason
> >> being that, because cpus have the same opp table it does not necessarily mean
> >> that they share a clock wire. It just tells us that they have the same
> >> capabilities (literally just tells us they have the same V/f op points).
> >> Unless I am missing something?
> >>
> >> When comparing with ACPI/_PSD it becomes more intuitive that there is no
> >> equivalent way to reveal "perf-dependencies" in DT.
> >
> > You should be able to by examining the clock tree. But perhaps SCMI
> > abstracts all that and just presents virtual clocks without parent
> > clocks available to determine what clocks are shared? Fix SCMI if that's
> > the case.
>
> True, the SCMI clock does not support discovery of clock tree:
> (from 4.6.1 Clock management protocol background)
> 'The protocol does not cover discovery of the clock tree, which must be
> described through firmware tables instead.' [1]

That's a shame given we don't describe whole clock trees in DT either.

How does assigned-clocks work with SCMI? Or any case where 2 devices
share a clock which imposes restrictions on the 2 devices ability to
control their clock. I guess more generally, this case is just the
latter. 2 CPUs are just 2 devices which may or may not share a clock.

>
> In this situation, would it make sense, instead of this binding from
> patch 1/2, create a binding for internal firmware/scmi node?

Maybe, but I think that's the least of the issues here.

>
> Something like:
>
> firmware {
>         scmi {
>         ...
>                 scmi-perf-dep {
>                         compatible = "arm,scmi-perf-dependencies";
>                         cpu-perf-dep0 {
>                                 cpu-perf-affinity = <&CPU0>, <&CPU1>;
>                         };
>                         cpu-perf-dep1 {
>                                 cpu-perf-affinity = <&CPU3>, <&CPU4>;
>                         };
>                         cpu-perf-dep2 {
>                                 cpu-perf-affinity = <&CPU7>;
>                         };
>                 };
>         };
> };
>
> The code which is going to parse the binding would be inside the
> scmi perf protocol code and used via API by scmi-cpufreq.c.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists