| 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: <6ea8c643-6977-4ce2-be1e-b0b0a73e8306@amd.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2024 08:21:33 -0600
From: Mario Limonciello <mario.limonciello@....com>
To: Dhananjay Ugwekar <Dhananjay.Ugwekar@....com>,
"Gautham R . Shenoy" <gautham.shenoy@....com>
Cc: Perry Yuan <perry.yuan@....com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-pm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 10/15] cpufreq/amd-pstate: Move limit updating code
On 12/16/2024 08:16, Dhananjay Ugwekar wrote:
> Hello Mario,
>
> On 12/10/2024 12:22 AM, Mario Limonciello wrote:
>> The limit updating code in amd_pstate_epp_update_limit() should not
>> only apply to EPP updates. Move it to amd_pstate_update_min_max_limit()
>> so other callers can benefit as well.
>>
>> With this move it's not necessary to have clamp_t calls anymore because
>> the verify callback is called when setting limits.
>
> While testing this series, I observed that with amd_pstate=passive + schedutil governor,
> the scaling_max_freq limits were not being honored and I bisected the issue down to this
> patch.
>
> I went through the code and noticed that in amd_pstate_adjust_perf(), we set the min_perf
> field in MSR_AMD_CPPC_REQ to "cap_perf" which is equal to cpudata->highest_perf (which is
> equal to 255 for non-preferred cores systems). This didnt seem logical to me and I changed
> cap_perf to cpudata->max_limit_perf which gives us the value updated in scaling_max_freq.
>
> I think as we removed the redundant clamping code, this pre-existing issue got exposed.
> The below diff fixes the issue for me.
>
> Please let me know your thoughts on this.
>
> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/amd-pstate.c b/drivers/cpufreq/amd-pstate.c
> index d7b1de97727a..1ac34e3f1fc5 100644
> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/amd-pstate.c
> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/amd-pstate.c
> @@ -699,7 +699,7 @@ static void amd_pstate_adjust_perf(unsigned int cpu,
> if (min_perf < lowest_nonlinear_perf)
> min_perf = lowest_nonlinear_perf;
>
> - max_perf = cap_perf;
> + max_perf = cpudata->max_limit_perf;
> if (max_perf < min_perf)
> max_perf = min_perf;
With this change I think you can also drop the comparison afterwards, as
an optimization right?
As this is already in superm1.git/linux-next after testing can you
please send a patch relative to superm1.git/linux-next branch?
Thanks!
>
> Thanks,
> Dhananjay
>
>>
>> Reviewed-by: Gautham R. Shenoy <gautham.shenoy@....com>
>> Signed-off-by: Mario Limonciello <mario.limonciello@....com>
>> ---
>> v2:
>> * Drop lowest_perf variable
>> ---
>> drivers/cpufreq/amd-pstate.c | 28 +++++-----------------------
>> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 23 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/amd-pstate.c b/drivers/cpufreq/amd-pstate.c
>> index 3a3df67c096d5..dc3c45b6f5103 100644
>> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/amd-pstate.c
>> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/amd-pstate.c
>> @@ -537,10 +537,6 @@ static void amd_pstate_update(struct amd_cpudata *cpudata, u32 min_perf,
>> u32 nominal_perf = READ_ONCE(cpudata->nominal_perf);
>> u64 value = prev;
>>
>> - min_perf = clamp_t(unsigned long, min_perf, cpudata->min_limit_perf,
>> - cpudata->max_limit_perf);
>> - max_perf = clamp_t(unsigned long, max_perf, cpudata->min_limit_perf,
>> - cpudata->max_limit_perf);
>> des_perf = clamp_t(unsigned long, des_perf, min_perf, max_perf);
>>
>> max_freq = READ_ONCE(cpudata->max_limit_freq);
>> @@ -607,7 +603,7 @@ static int amd_pstate_verify(struct cpufreq_policy_data *policy_data)
>>
>> static int amd_pstate_update_min_max_limit(struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
>> {
>> - u32 max_limit_perf, min_limit_perf, lowest_perf, max_perf, max_freq;
>> + u32 max_limit_perf, min_limit_perf, max_perf, max_freq;
>> struct amd_cpudata *cpudata = policy->driver_data;
>>
>> max_perf = READ_ONCE(cpudata->highest_perf);
>> @@ -615,12 +611,8 @@ static int amd_pstate_update_min_max_limit(struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
>> max_limit_perf = div_u64(policy->max * max_perf, max_freq);
>> min_limit_perf = div_u64(policy->min * max_perf, max_freq);
>>
>> - lowest_perf = READ_ONCE(cpudata->lowest_perf);
>> - if (min_limit_perf < lowest_perf)
>> - min_limit_perf = lowest_perf;
>> -
>> - if (max_limit_perf < min_limit_perf)
>> - max_limit_perf = min_limit_perf;
>> + if (cpudata->policy == CPUFREQ_POLICY_PERFORMANCE)
>> + min_limit_perf = min(cpudata->nominal_perf, max_limit_perf);
>>
>> WRITE_ONCE(cpudata->max_limit_perf, max_limit_perf);
>> WRITE_ONCE(cpudata->min_limit_perf, min_limit_perf);
>> @@ -1562,28 +1554,18 @@ static void amd_pstate_epp_cpu_exit(struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
>> static int amd_pstate_epp_update_limit(struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
>> {
>> struct amd_cpudata *cpudata = policy->driver_data;
>> - u32 max_perf, min_perf;
>> u64 value;
>> s16 epp;
>>
>> - max_perf = READ_ONCE(cpudata->highest_perf);
>> - min_perf = READ_ONCE(cpudata->lowest_perf);
>> amd_pstate_update_min_max_limit(policy);
>>
>> - max_perf = clamp_t(unsigned long, max_perf, cpudata->min_limit_perf,
>> - cpudata->max_limit_perf);
>> - min_perf = clamp_t(unsigned long, min_perf, cpudata->min_limit_perf,
>> - cpudata->max_limit_perf);
>> value = READ_ONCE(cpudata->cppc_req_cached);
>>
>> - if (cpudata->policy == CPUFREQ_POLICY_PERFORMANCE)
>> - min_perf = min(cpudata->nominal_perf, max_perf);
>> -
>> value &= ~(AMD_CPPC_MAX_PERF_MASK | AMD_CPPC_MIN_PERF_MASK |
>> AMD_CPPC_DES_PERF_MASK);
>> - value |= FIELD_PREP(AMD_CPPC_MAX_PERF_MASK, max_perf);
>> + value |= FIELD_PREP(AMD_CPPC_MAX_PERF_MASK, cpudata->max_limit_perf);
>> value |= FIELD_PREP(AMD_CPPC_DES_PERF_MASK, 0);
>> - value |= FIELD_PREP(AMD_CPPC_MIN_PERF_MASK, min_perf);
>> + value |= FIELD_PREP(AMD_CPPC_MIN_PERF_MASK, cpudata->min_limit_perf);
>>
>> /* Get BIOS pre-defined epp value */
>> epp = amd_pstate_get_epp(cpudata, value);
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists