[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <12457165.O9o76ZdvQC@rjwysocki.net>
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2024 19:30:55 +0200
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
To: Aaron Rainbolt <arainbolt@...cus.org>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
Mario Limonciello <mario.limonciello@....com>, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, rafael@...nel.org, lenb@...nel.org,
mmikowski@...cus.org, Perry.Yuan@....com,
Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@...ux.intel.com>
Subject:
Re: [PATCH V3] acpi: Allow ignoring _OSC CPPC v2 bit via kernel parameter
On Wednesday, June 19, 2024 7:09:35 PM CEST Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 19, 2024 at 6:33 AM Aaron Rainbolt <arainbolt@...cus.org> wrote:
> >
> > acpi: Allow ignoring _OSC CPPC v2 bit via kernel parameter
> >
> > The _OSC is supposed to contain a bit indicating whether the hardware
> > supports CPPC v2 or not. This bit is not always set, causing CPPC v2 to
> > be considered absent. This results in severe single-core performance
> > issues with the EEVDF scheduler on heterogenous-core Intel processors.
>
> While some things can be affected by this, I don't immediately see a
> connection between CPPC v2, Intel hybrid processors and EEVDF.
>
> In particular, why would EEVDF alone be affected?
>
> Care to explain this?
And the reason why I am asking is because I think that you really need
something like this (untested beyond compilation):
---
drivers/cpufreq/intel_pstate.c | 16 ++++++++--------
1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
Index: linux-pm/drivers/cpufreq/intel_pstate.c
===================================================================
--- linux-pm.orig/drivers/cpufreq/intel_pstate.c
+++ linux-pm/drivers/cpufreq/intel_pstate.c
@@ -355,16 +355,16 @@ static void intel_pstate_set_itmt_prio(i
int ret;
ret = cppc_get_perf_caps(cpu, &cppc_perf);
- if (ret)
- return;
-
/*
- * On some systems with overclocking enabled, CPPC.highest_perf is hardcoded to 0xff.
- * In this case we can't use CPPC.highest_perf to enable ITMT.
- * In this case we can look at MSR_HWP_CAPABILITIES bits [8:0] to decide.
+ * If CPPC is not available, fall back to MSR_HWP_CAPABILITIES bits [8:0].
+ *
+ * Also, on some systems with overclocking enabled, CPPC.highest_perf is
+ * hardcoded to 0xff, so CPPC.highest_perf cannot be used to enable ITMT.
+ * Fall back to MSR_HWP_CAPABILITIES then too.
*/
- if (cppc_perf.highest_perf == CPPC_MAX_PERF)
- cppc_perf.highest_perf = HWP_HIGHEST_PERF(READ_ONCE(all_cpu_data[cpu]->hwp_cap_cached));
+ if (ret || cppc_perf.highest_perf == CPPC_MAX_PERF)
+ cppc_perf.highest_perf =
+ HWP_HIGHEST_PERF(READ_ONCE(all_cpu_data[cpu]->hwp_cap_cached));
/*
* The priorities can be set regardless of whether or not
Powered by blists - more mailing lists