[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <76zutrz47zs6i2cquvjo2qn7myxpq7e3c6alhper7n3wrkhf5h@22l5t5pio2cd>
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2024 21:23:10 -0700
From: Vanshidhar Konda <vanshikonda@...amperecomputing.com>
To: Beata Michalska <beata.michalska@....com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
ionela.voinescu@....com, sudeep.holla@....com, will@...nel.org, catalin.marinas@....com,
vincent.guittot@...aro.org, sumitg@...dia.com, yang@...amperecomputing.com,
lihuisong@...wei.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 4/4] cpufreq: Use arch specific feedback for
cpuinfo_cur_freq
On Fri, Apr 05, 2024 at 02:33:19PM +0100, Beata Michalska wrote:
>Some architectures provide a way to determine an average frequency over
>a certain period of time based on available performance monitors (AMU on
>ARM or APERF/MPERf on x86). With those at hand, enroll arch_freq_get_on_cpu
>into cpuinfo_cur_freq policy sysfs attribute handler, which is expected to
>represent the current frequency of a given CPU, as obtained by the hardware.
>This is the type of feedback that counters do provide.
>
--- snip ---
While testing this patch series on AmpereOne system, I simulated CPU
frequency throttling when the system is under power or thermal
constraints.
In this scenario, based on the user guilde, I expect scaling_cur_freq
is the frequency the kernel requests from the hardware; cpuinfo_cur_freq
is the actual frequency that the hardware is able to run at during the
power or thermal constraints.
The AmpereOne system I'm testing on has the following configuration:
- Max frequency is 3000000
- Support for AMU registers
- ACPI CPPC feedback counters use PCC register space
- Fedora 39 with 6.7.5 kernel
- Fedora 39 with 6.9.0-rc3 + this patch series
With 6.7.5 kernel:
Core scaling_cur_freq cpuinfo_cur_freq
---- ---------------- ----------------
0 3000000 2593000
1 3000000 2613000
2 3000000 2625000
3 3000000 2632000
With 6.9.0-rc3 + this patch series:
Core scaling_cur_freq cpuinfo_cur_freq
---- ---------------- ----------------
0 2671875 2671875
1 2589632 2589632
2 2648437 2648437
3 2698242 2698242
In the second case we can't identify that the CPU frequency is
being throttled by the hardware. I noticed this behavior with
or without this patch.
Thanks,
Vanshi
Powered by blists - more mailing lists