[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <daf1ddf5-6f57-84a8-2ada-90590c0c94b5@quicinc.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2021 11:17:55 -0400
From: Qian Cai <quic_qiancai@...cinc.com>
To: Ionela Voinescu <ionela.voinescu@....com>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>
CC: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
Rafael Wysocki <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
Ben Segall <bsegall@...gle.com>,
Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@...hat.com>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
"open list:THERMAL" <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V3 0/4] cpufreq: cppc: Add support for frequency
invariance
On 6/24/2021 6:48 AM, Ionela Voinescu wrote:
> Not if the counters are implemented properly. The kernel considers that
> both reference and delivered performance counters should stop or reset
> during idle. The kernel would not account for idle itself.
>
> If the reference performance counter does not stop during idle, while
> the core performance counter (delivered) does stop, the behavior above
> should be seen very often.
>
> Qian, do you see these small delivered performance values often or
> seldom?
Ionela, so I managed to upgrade the kernel on the system to today's linux-next which suppose to include this series. The delivered perf is now 280. However, scaling_min_freq (200 MHz) is not equal to lowest_perf (100).
scaling_driver: acpi_cppc
scaling_governor: schedutil
Is that normal because lowest_nonlinear_perf is 200?
Also, on this pretty idle system, 158 of 160 CPUs are always running in max freq (280 MHz). The other 2 are running in 243 and 213 MHz according to scaling_cur_freq. Apparently, "schedutil" does not work proper on this system. I am going to try other governors to narrow down the issue a bit.
FYI, here is the acpi_cppc registers reading:
/sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu0/acpi_cppc/feedback_ctrs
ref:160705801 del:449594095
/sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu0/acpi_cppc/highest_perf
300
/sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu0/acpi_cppc/lowest_freq
1000
/sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu0/acpi_cppc/lowest_nonlinear_perf
200
/sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu0/acpi_cppc/lowest_perf
100
/sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu0/acpi_cppc/nominal_freq
2800
/sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu0/acpi_cppc/nominal_perf
280
/sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu0/acpi_cppc/reference_perf
100
/sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu0/acpi_cppc/wraparound_time
18446744073709551615
Powered by blists - more mailing lists