[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <6c078e43-5dba-b980-5890-18c7b7cf7157@huawei.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2023 14:18:20 +0800
From: Jinjie Ruan <ruanjinjie@...wei.com>
To: <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@...ux.intel.com>,
Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
CC: <zhaowenhui8@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: intel_pstate: Fix CPU lowest Frequency bug when
offline/online for passive
Ping.
On 2023/11/7 10:58, Jinjie Ruan wrote:
> There is a bug in passive mode for intel pstate when
> CONFIG_X86_INTEL_PSTATE = y and configure intel_pstate = passive in command
> line. On Ice Lake server, although the performance tuner is used, the CPU
> have the lowest frequency in scaling_cur_freq after the CPU goes offline and
> then goes online, running the same infinite loop load.
>
> How to reproduce:
>
> cat while_true.c
> #include <stdio.h>
> void main(void)
> {
> while(1);
> }
>
> [root@...alhost freq_test]# cat test.sh
> #!/bin/bash
>
> cat /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu${1}/cpufreq/scaling_cur_freq
> cat /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu${1}/cpufreq/scaling_governor
> taskset -c ${1} ./while_true &
> sleep 1s
>
> cat /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu${1}/cpufreq/scaling_cur_freq
>
> echo 0 > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu${1}/online
>
> sleep 1s
> cat /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu${1}/cpufreq/scaling_cur_freq
>
> sleep 1s
>
> echo 1 > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu${1}/online
> cat /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu${1}/cpufreq/scaling_cur_freq
>
> taskset -c ${1} ./while_true &
>
> sleep 1s
> cat /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu${1}/cpufreq/scaling_cur_freq
>
> sleep 1s
> cat /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu${1}/cpufreq/scaling_cur_freq
>
> sleep 1s
> cat /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu${1}/cpufreq/scaling_cur_freq
>
> The CPU frequency is adjusted to the minimum after offline and online:
>
> [root@...alhost freq_test]# sh test.sh 20
> 2300000
> performance
> 2299977
> cat: /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu20/cpufreq/scaling_cur_freq: Device or
> resource busy
> 800000
> 800000
> 800000
> 799992
> [root@...alhost freq_test]# sh test.sh 21
> 2300000
> performance
> 2300000
> cat: /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu21/cpufreq/scaling_cur_freq: Device or
> resource busy
> 800000
> 800000
> 800000
> 800000
>
> As in __cpufreq_driver_target(), the cpufreq core will not call intel
> cpufreq's target() callback if the target freq is equal with policy->cur
> and do not set CPUFREQ_NEED_UPDATE_LIMITS flag, but the hardware also not
> proactively keep CPU with the policy->cur frequency. So also set
> CPUFREQ_NEED_UPDATE_LIMITS for passive mode. After applying this patch,
> the CPU frequency is consistent as what performance tuner expected after
> CPU offline and online as below:
>
> [root@...alhost freq_test]# sh test.sh 20
> 2300000
> performance
> 2300000
> cat: /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu20/cpufreq/scaling_cur_freq: Device or resource busy
> 2300000
> 2300000
> 2299977
> 2299977
> [root@...alhost freq_test]# sh test.sh 21
> 2300000
> performance
> 2300000
> cat: /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu21/cpufreq/scaling_cur_freq: Device or resource busy
> 2300000
> 2300000
> 2300000
> 2300000
> [root@...alhost freq_test]# cat /sys/devices/system/cpu/intel_pstate/status
> passive
>
> Signed-off-by: Jinjie Ruan <ruanjinjie@...wei.com>
> ---
> drivers/cpufreq/intel_pstate.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/intel_pstate.c b/drivers/cpufreq/intel_pstate.c
> index a534a1f7f1ee..73403f1292b0 100644
> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/intel_pstate.c
> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/intel_pstate.c
> @@ -3091,7 +3091,7 @@ static int intel_cpufreq_suspend(struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
> }
>
> static struct cpufreq_driver intel_cpufreq = {
> - .flags = CPUFREQ_CONST_LOOPS,
> + .flags = CPUFREQ_CONST_LOOPS | CPUFREQ_NEED_UPDATE_LIMITS,
> .verify = intel_cpufreq_verify_policy,
> .target = intel_cpufreq_target,
> .fast_switch = intel_cpufreq_fast_switch,
Powered by blists - more mailing lists