| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20230906174756.n7itmfrc37crp2uz@BLR-5CG13462PL.amd.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2023 23:19:37 +0530
From: Wyes Karny <wyes.karny@....com>
To: Meng Li <li.meng@....com>
CC: Wyes Karny <wyes.karny@....com>,
"Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
Huang Rui <ray.huang@....com>, <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <x86@...nel.org>,
<linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
Shuah Khan <skhan@...uxfoundation.org>,
<linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org>,
Nathan Fontenot <nathan.fontenot@....com>,
Deepak Sharma <deepak.sharma@....com>,
Alex Deucher <alexander.deucher@....com>,
Mario Limonciello <mario.limonciello@....com>,
Shimmer Huang <shimmer.huang@....com>,
Perry Yuan <Perry.Yuan@....com>,
Xiaojian Du <Xiaojian.Du@....com>,
Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V5 5/7] cpufreq: amd-pstate: Update amd-pstate preferred core ranking dynamically
Hi Meng Li,
On 05 Sep 09:51, Meng Li wrote:
> Preferred core rankings can be changed dynamically by the
> platform based on the workload and platform conditions and
> accounting for thermals and aging.
> When this occurs, cpu priority need to be set.
>
> Signed-off-by: Meng Li <li.meng@....com>
> Reviewed-by: Wyes Karny <wyes.karny@....com>
> ---
> drivers/cpufreq/amd-pstate.c | 36 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
> include/linux/amd-pstate.h | 11 +++++++++++
> 2 files changed, 45 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/amd-pstate.c b/drivers/cpufreq/amd-pstate.c
> index 454eb6e789e7..8c19e1d50d29 100644
> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/amd-pstate.c
> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/amd-pstate.c
> @@ -318,6 +318,7 @@ static int pstate_init_perf(struct amd_cpudata *cpudata)
> WRITE_ONCE(cpudata->nominal_perf, AMD_CPPC_NOMINAL_PERF(cap1));
> WRITE_ONCE(cpudata->lowest_nonlinear_perf, AMD_CPPC_LOWNONLIN_PERF(cap1));
> WRITE_ONCE(cpudata->lowest_perf, AMD_CPPC_LOWEST_PERF(cap1));
> + WRITE_ONCE(cpudata->cppc_highest_perf, AMD_CPPC_HIGHEST_PERF(cap1));
Is there any reason to change this variable name form
`prefcore_highest_perf`(in v3) to `cppc_highest_perf`? I feel
`cppc_highest_perf` is bit confusing as there is already `highest_perf`
variable present. How about something like `prefcore_ranking` variable
name?
Thanks,
Wyes
>
> return 0;
> }
> @@ -339,6 +340,7 @@ static int cppc_init_perf(struct amd_cpudata *cpudata)
> WRITE_ONCE(cpudata->lowest_nonlinear_perf,
> cppc_perf.lowest_nonlinear_perf);
> WRITE_ONCE(cpudata->lowest_perf, cppc_perf.lowest_perf);
> + WRITE_ONCE(cpudata->cppc_highest_perf, cppc_perf.highest_perf);
>
> if (cppc_state == AMD_PSTATE_ACTIVE)
> return 0;
> @@ -545,7 +547,7 @@ static void amd_pstate_adjust_perf(unsigned int cpu,
> if (target_perf < capacity)
> des_perf = DIV_ROUND_UP(cap_perf * target_perf, capacity);
>
> - min_perf = READ_ONCE(cpudata->highest_perf);
> + min_perf = READ_ONCE(cpudata->lowest_perf);
> if (_min_perf < capacity)
> min_perf = DIV_ROUND_UP(cap_perf * _min_perf, capacity);
>
> @@ -748,6 +750,34 @@ static void amd_pstate_init_prefcore(void)
> schedule_work(&sched_prefcore_work);
> }
>
> +static void amd_pstate_update_highest_perf(unsigned int cpu)
> +{
> + struct cpufreq_policy *policy;
> + struct amd_cpudata *cpudata;
> + u32 prev_high = 0, cur_high = 0;
> + u64 highest_perf;
> + int ret;
> +
> + if (!prefcore)
> + return;
> +
> + ret = amd_pstate_get_highest_perf(cpu, &highest_perf);
> + if (ret)
> + return;
> +
> + policy = cpufreq_cpu_get(cpu);
> + cpudata = policy->driver_data;
> + cur_high = highest_perf;
> + prev_high = READ_ONCE(cpudata->cppc_highest_perf);
> +
> + if (prev_high != cur_high) {
> + WRITE_ONCE(cpudata->cppc_highest_perf, cur_high);
> + sched_set_itmt_core_prio(cur_high, cpu);
> + }
> +
> + cpufreq_cpu_put(policy);
> +}
> +
> static int amd_pstate_cpu_init(struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
> {
> int min_freq, max_freq, nominal_freq, lowest_nonlinear_freq, ret;
> @@ -912,7 +942,7 @@ static ssize_t show_amd_pstate_highest_perf(struct cpufreq_policy *policy,
> u32 perf;
> struct amd_cpudata *cpudata = policy->driver_data;
>
> - perf = READ_ONCE(cpudata->highest_perf);
> + perf = READ_ONCE(cpudata->cppc_highest_perf);
>
> return sysfs_emit(buf, "%u\n", perf);
> }
> @@ -1479,6 +1509,7 @@ static struct cpufreq_driver amd_pstate_driver = {
> .suspend = amd_pstate_cpu_suspend,
> .resume = amd_pstate_cpu_resume,
> .set_boost = amd_pstate_set_boost,
> + .update_highest_perf = amd_pstate_update_highest_perf,
> .name = "amd-pstate",
> .attr = amd_pstate_attr,
> };
> @@ -1493,6 +1524,7 @@ static struct cpufreq_driver amd_pstate_epp_driver = {
> .online = amd_pstate_epp_cpu_online,
> .suspend = amd_pstate_epp_suspend,
> .resume = amd_pstate_epp_resume,
> + .update_highest_perf = amd_pstate_update_highest_perf,
> .name = "amd-pstate-epp",
> .attr = amd_pstate_epp_attr,
> };
> diff --git a/include/linux/amd-pstate.h b/include/linux/amd-pstate.h
> index 446394f84606..2159fd5693fe 100644
> --- a/include/linux/amd-pstate.h
> +++ b/include/linux/amd-pstate.h
> @@ -31,6 +31,11 @@ struct amd_aperf_mperf {
> u64 mperf;
> u64 tsc;
> };
> + /* For platforms that do not support the preferred core feature, the
> + * highest_pef may be configured with 166 or 255, to avoid max frequency
> + * calculated wrongly. we take the AMD_CPPC_HIGHEST_PERF(cap1) value as
> + * the default max perf.
> + */
>
> /**
> * struct amd_cpudata - private CPU data for AMD P-State
> @@ -39,11 +44,16 @@ struct amd_aperf_mperf {
> * @cppc_req_cached: cached performance request hints
> * @highest_perf: the maximum performance an individual processor may reach,
> * assuming ideal conditions
> + * For platforms that do not support the preferred core feature, the
> + * highest_pef may be configured with 166 or 255, to avoid max frequency
> + * calculated wrongly. we take the fixed value as the highest_perf.
> * @nominal_perf: the maximum sustained performance level of the processor,
> * assuming ideal operating conditions
> * @lowest_nonlinear_perf: the lowest performance level at which nonlinear power
> * savings are achieved
> * @lowest_perf: the absolute lowest performance level of the processor
> + * @cppc_highest_perf: the maximum performance an individual processor may reach,
> + * assuming ideal conditions
> * @max_freq: the frequency that mapped to highest_perf
> * @min_freq: the frequency that mapped to lowest_perf
> * @nominal_freq: the frequency that mapped to nominal_perf
> @@ -70,6 +80,7 @@ struct amd_cpudata {
> u32 nominal_perf;
> u32 lowest_nonlinear_perf;
> u32 lowest_perf;
> + u32 cppc_highest_perf;
>
> u32 max_freq;
> u32 min_freq;
> --
> 2.34.1
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists