| 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: <bb49cd31-a02f-46f9-8757-554bd7783261@amd.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2024 12:54:34 -0500
From: Mario Limonciello <mario.limonciello@....com>
To: "Jones, Morgan" <Morgan.Jones@...sat.com>,
Dhananjay Ugwekar <Dhananjay.Ugwekar@....com>,
"rafael@...nel.org" <rafael@...nel.org>,
"viresh.kumar@...aro.org" <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
"gautham.shenoy@....com" <gautham.shenoy@....com>,
"perry.yuan@....com" <perry.yuan@....com>,
"skhan@...uxfoundation.org" <skhan@...uxfoundation.org>,
"li.meng@....com" <li.meng@....com>, "ray.huang@....com" <ray.huang@....com>
Cc: "linux-pm@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
David Arcari <darcari@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] cpufreq/amd-pstate: Fix the scaling_max_freq
setting on shared memory CPPC systems
Hi Morgan,
Can you please cross reference 6.11-rc6 to see if you're still having a
problem? I would like to understand if we're missing a backport to
stable or this is still an upstream problem.
Thanks,
On 9/3/2024 12:51, Jones, Morgan wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> We are experiencing a ~35% performance regression on an AMD EPYC 7702 64 core machine after applying this patch. We observed Linux 6.6.44 starting to cause the issue, and performed a bisect involving rebooting the machine over 15 times. (Note that kexec didn't successfully identify the problem, since the PM memory mailbox is never reset).
>
> It appears that we are getting a max of 2.18 GHz when this CPU can boost to 3.35 GHz, explaining the slowdown. Blacklisting amd-pstate solves the issue at the expense of the performance increase we used to get by using it.
>
> Is it possible that the upper limits were implicitly at the max CPU power before, and setting the upper limit to something other than the boost frequency can reduce performance now?
>
> # bad: [7213910600667c51c978e577bf5454d3f7b313b7] Linux 6.6.44
> # good: [58b0425ff5df680d0b67f64ae1f3f1ebdf1c4de9] Linux 6.6.43
> git bisect start '7213910600667c51c978e577bf5454d3f7b313b7' '58b0425ff5df680d0b67f64ae1f3f1ebdf1c4de9'
> # good: [72ff9d26964a3a80f7650df719df139f5c1f965d] arm64: dts: qcom: sm6350: Add missing qcom,non-secure-domain property
> git bisect good 72ff9d26964a3a80f7650df719df139f5c1f965d
> # good: [0fffc2e1bf40a2220ef5a38f834ea063dba832d3] ARM: dts: sunxi: remove duplicated entries in makefile
> git bisect good 0fffc2e1bf40a2220ef5a38f834ea063dba832d3
> # bad: [8cdbe6ebfd1763a5c41a2a3058497c0a9163311c] pinctrl: renesas: r8a779g0: Fix CANFD5 suffix
> git bisect bad 8cdbe6ebfd1763a5c41a2a3058497c0a9163311c
> # bad: [5dbb98e7fa42bebc1325899193d8f13f0705a148] drm/mediatek: Turn off the layers with zero width or height
> git bisect bad 5dbb98e7fa42bebc1325899193d8f13f0705a148
> # bad: [691ec7043122c9c8c46d84f6e6cd85d13d50cd93] selftests/bpf: Null checks for links in bpf_tcp_ca
> git bisect bad 691ec7043122c9c8c46d84f6e6cd85d13d50cd93
> # bad: [a1359e085d75d7393a250054e66c0a7bc6c3dbfa] perf/x86: Serialize set_attr_rdpmc()
> git bisect bad a1359e085d75d7393a250054e66c0a7bc6c3dbfa
> # bad: [e99d9b16ff153de9540073239d24adc3b0a3a997] wifi: ath12k: change DMA direction while mapping reinjected packets
> git bisect bad e99d9b16ff153de9540073239d24adc3b0a3a997
> # bad: [d027ac4a08541beb2a89563d3e034da7085050ba] firmware: turris-mox-rwtm: Initialize completion before mailbox
> git bisect bad d027ac4a08541beb2a89563d3e034da7085050ba
> # bad: [e6c9eca327e6a41a81e7eba0d0ddc13da37f82a1] ARM: spitz: fix GPIO assignment for backlight
> git bisect bad e6c9eca327e6a41a81e7eba0d0ddc13da37f82a1
> # bad: [b8cdefdaa555bbfc269c2198803f8791a8923960] m68k: cmpxchg: Fix return value for default case in __arch_xchg()
> git bisect bad b8cdefdaa555bbfc269c2198803f8791a8923960
> # bad: [13a71384ae6a8779da809b00c6f378dcead10427] cpufreq/amd-pstate: Fix the scaling_max_freq setting on shared memory CPPC systems
> git bisect bad 13a71384ae6a8779da809b00c6f378dcead10427
> # first bad commit: [13a71384ae6a8779da809b00c6f378dcead10427] cpufreq/amd-pstate: Fix the scaling_max_freq setting on shared memory CPPC systems
>
> cpupower output:
>
> analyzing CPU 47:
> driver: amd-pstate-epp
> CPUs which run at the same hardware frequency: 47
> CPUs which need to have their frequency coordinated by software: 47
> maximum transition latency: Cannot determine or is not supported.
> hardware limits: 400 MHz - 2.18 GHz
> available cpufreq governors: performance powersave
> current policy: frequency should be within 400 MHz and 2.18 GHz.
> The governor "performance" may decide which speed to use
> within this range.
> current CPU frequency: Unable to call hardware
> current CPU frequency: 2.17 GHz (asserted by call to kernel)
> boost state support:
> Supported: yes
> Active: yes
> AMD PSTATE Highest Performance: 166. Maximum Frequency: 2.18 GHz.
> AMD PSTATE Nominal Performance: 152. Nominal Frequency: 2.00 GHz.
> AMD PSTATE Lowest Non-linear Performance: 115. Lowest Non-linear Frequency: 1.51 GHz.
> AMD PSTATE Lowest Performance: 31. Lowest Frequency: 400 MHz.
>
> Thanks,
> Morgan
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mario Limonciello <mario.limonciello@....com>
> Sent: Tuesday, July 2, 2024 10:49 AM
> To: Dhananjay Ugwekar <Dhananjay.Ugwekar@....com>; rafael@...nel.org; viresh.kumar@...aro.org; gautham.shenoy@....com; perry.yuan@....com; skhan@...uxfoundation.org; li.meng@....com; ray.huang@....com
> Cc: linux-pm@...r.kernel.org; linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org; David Arcari <darcari@...hat.com>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] cpufreq/amd-pstate: Fix the scaling_max_freq setting on shared memory CPPC systems
>
> On 7/2/2024 3:14, Dhananjay Ugwekar wrote:
>> On shared memory CPPC systems, with amd_pstate=active mode, the change
>> in scaling_max_freq doesn't get written to the shared memory region.
>> Due to this, the writes to the scaling_max_freq sysfs file don't take
>> effect. Fix this by propagating the scaling_max_freq changes to the
>> shared memory region.
>>
>> Fixes: ffa5096a7c33 ("cpufreq: amd-pstate: implement Pstate EPP
>> support for the AMD processors")
>> Reported-by: David Arcari <darcari@...hat.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Dhananjay Ugwekar <Dhananjay.Ugwekar@....com>
> Reviewed-by: Mario Limonciello <mario.limonciello@....com>
>> ---
>> drivers/cpufreq/amd-pstate.c | 43 +++++++++++++++++++-----------------
>> 1 file changed, 23 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/amd-pstate.c
>> b/drivers/cpufreq/amd-pstate.c index 9ad62dbe8bfb..a092b13ffbc2 100644
>> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/amd-pstate.c
>> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/amd-pstate.c
>> @@ -247,6 +247,26 @@ static int amd_pstate_get_energy_pref_index(struct amd_cpudata *cpudata)
>> return index;
>> }
>>
>> +static void pstate_update_perf(struct amd_cpudata *cpudata, u32 min_perf,
>> + u32 des_perf, u32 max_perf, bool fast_switch) {
>> + if (fast_switch)
>> + wrmsrl(MSR_AMD_CPPC_REQ, READ_ONCE(cpudata->cppc_req_cached));
>> + else
>> + wrmsrl_on_cpu(cpudata->cpu, MSR_AMD_CPPC_REQ,
>> + READ_ONCE(cpudata->cppc_req_cached));
>> +}
>> +
>> +DEFINE_STATIC_CALL(amd_pstate_update_perf, pstate_update_perf);
>> +
>> +static inline void amd_pstate_update_perf(struct amd_cpudata *cpudata,
>> + u32 min_perf, u32 des_perf,
>> + u32 max_perf, bool fast_switch) {
>> + static_call(amd_pstate_update_perf)(cpudata, min_perf, des_perf,
>> + max_perf, fast_switch);
>> +}
>> +
>> static int amd_pstate_set_epp(struct amd_cpudata *cpudata, u32 epp)
>> {
>> int ret;
>> @@ -263,6 +283,9 @@ static int amd_pstate_set_epp(struct amd_cpudata *cpudata, u32 epp)
>> if (!ret)
>> cpudata->epp_cached = epp;
>> } else {
>> + amd_pstate_update_perf(cpudata, cpudata->min_limit_perf, 0U,
>> + cpudata->max_limit_perf, false);
>> +
>> perf_ctrls.energy_perf = epp;
>> ret = cppc_set_epp_perf(cpudata->cpu, &perf_ctrls, 1);
>> if (ret) {
>> @@ -452,16 +475,6 @@ static inline int amd_pstate_init_perf(struct amd_cpudata *cpudata)
>> return static_call(amd_pstate_init_perf)(cpudata);
>> }
>>
>> -static void pstate_update_perf(struct amd_cpudata *cpudata, u32 min_perf,
>> - u32 des_perf, u32 max_perf, bool fast_switch)
>> -{
>> - if (fast_switch)
>> - wrmsrl(MSR_AMD_CPPC_REQ, READ_ONCE(cpudata->cppc_req_cached));
>> - else
>> - wrmsrl_on_cpu(cpudata->cpu, MSR_AMD_CPPC_REQ,
>> - READ_ONCE(cpudata->cppc_req_cached));
>> -}
>> -
>> static void cppc_update_perf(struct amd_cpudata *cpudata,
>> u32 min_perf, u32 des_perf,
>> u32 max_perf, bool fast_switch) @@ -475,16 +488,6 @@ static
>> void cppc_update_perf(struct amd_cpudata *cpudata,
>> cppc_set_perf(cpudata->cpu, &perf_ctrls);
>> }
>>
>> -DEFINE_STATIC_CALL(amd_pstate_update_perf, pstate_update_perf);
>> -
>> -static inline void amd_pstate_update_perf(struct amd_cpudata *cpudata,
>> - u32 min_perf, u32 des_perf,
>> - u32 max_perf, bool fast_switch)
>> -{
>> - static_call(amd_pstate_update_perf)(cpudata, min_perf, des_perf,
>> - max_perf, fast_switch);
>> -}
>> -
>> static inline bool amd_pstate_sample(struct amd_cpudata *cpudata)
>> {
>> u64 aperf, mperf, tsc;
>
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists