linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] cpufreq/amd-pstate: Refactor max frequency calculation

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
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <057d8f01-c1ee-428c-8c19-80edcf9017bd@amd.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Dec 2024 11:19:35 +0530
From: Dhananjay Ugwekar <Dhananjay.Ugwekar@....com>
To: "Gautham R. Shenoy" <gautham.shenoy@....com>,
 Naresh Solanki <naresh.solanki@...ements.com>
Cc: Huang Rui <ray.huang@....com>,
 Mario Limonciello <mario.limonciello@....com>,
 Perry Yuan <perry.yuan@....com>, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
 Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] cpufreq/amd-pstate: Refactor max frequency calculation

On 12/20/2024 11:46 AM, Gautham R. Shenoy wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 20, 2024 at 12:51:43AM +0530, Naresh Solanki wrote:
>> The previous approach introduced roundoff errors during division when
>> calculating the boost ratio. This, in turn, affected the maximum
>> frequency calculation, often resulting in reporting lower frequency
>> values.
>>
>> For example, on the Glinda SoC based board with the following
>> parameters:
>>
>> max_perf = 208
>> nominal_perf = 100
>> nominal_freq = 2600 MHz
>>
>> The Linux kernel previously calculated the frequency as:
>> freq = ((max_perf * 1024 / nominal_perf) * nominal_freq) / 1024
>> freq = 5405 MHz  // Integer arithmetic.
>>
>> With the updated formula:
>> freq = (max_perf * nominal_freq) / nominal_perf
>> freq = 5408 MHz
>>
>> This change ensures more accurate frequency calculations by eliminating
>> unnecessary shifts and divisions, thereby improving precision.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Naresh Solanki <naresh.solanki@...ements.com>
>>
>> Changes in V2:
>> 1. Rebase on superm1.git/linux-next branch
>> ---
>>  drivers/cpufreq/amd-pstate.c | 9 ++++-----
>>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/amd-pstate.c b/drivers/cpufreq/amd-pstate.c
>> index d7b1de97727a..02a851f93fd6 100644
>> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/amd-pstate.c
>> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/amd-pstate.c
>> @@ -908,9 +908,9 @@ static int amd_pstate_init_freq(struct amd_cpudata *cpudata)
>>  {
>>  	int ret;
>>  	u32 min_freq, max_freq;
>> -	u32 nominal_perf, nominal_freq;
>> +	u32 highest_perf, nominal_perf, nominal_freq;
>>  	u32 lowest_nonlinear_perf, lowest_nonlinear_freq;
>> -	u32 boost_ratio, lowest_nonlinear_ratio;
>> +	u32 lowest_nonlinear_ratio;
>>  	struct cppc_perf_caps cppc_perf;
>>  
>>  	ret = cppc_get_perf_caps(cpudata->cpu, &cppc_perf);
>> @@ -927,10 +927,9 @@ static int amd_pstate_init_freq(struct amd_cpudata *cpudata)
>>  	else
>>  		nominal_freq = cppc_perf.nominal_freq;
>>  
>> +	highest_perf = READ_ONCE(cpudata->highest_perf);
>>  	nominal_perf = READ_ONCE(cpudata->nominal_perf);
>> -
>> -	boost_ratio = div_u64(cpudata->highest_perf << SCHED_CAPACITY_SHIFT, nominal_perf);
>> -	max_freq = (nominal_freq * boost_ratio >> SCHED_CAPACITY_SHIFT);
> 
> 
> The patch looks obviously correct to me. And the suggested method
> would work because nominal_freq is larger than the nominal_perf and
> thus scaling is really necessary.
> 
> Besides, before this patch, there was another obvious issue that we
> were computing the boost_ratio when we should have been computing the
> ratio of nominal_freq and nominal_perf and then multiplied this with
> max_perf without losing precision.
> 
> This is just one instance, but it can be generalized so that any 
> freq --> perf and perf --> freq can be computed without loss of precision.
> 
> We need two things:
> 
> 1. The mult_factor should be computed as a ratio of nominal_freq and
> nominal_perf (and vice versa) as they are always known.
> 
> 2. Use DIV64_U64_ROUND_UP instead of div64() which rounds up instead of rounding down.
> 
> So if we have the shifts defined as follows:
> 
> #define PERF_SHIFT   12UL //shift used for freq --> perf conversion
> #define FREQ_SHIFT   10UL //shift used for perf --> freq conversion.
> 
> And in amd_pstate_init_freq() code, we initialize the two global variables:
> 
> u64 freq_mult_factor = DIV64_U64_ROUND_UP(nominal_freq  << FREQ_SHIFT, nominal_perf);
> u64 perf_mult_factor = DIV64_U64_ROUND_UP(nominal_perf  << PERF_SHIFT, nominal_freq);

I like this approach, but can we assume the nominal freq/perf values to be the same for 
all CPUs, otherwise we would need to make these factors a per-CPU or per-domain(where 
all CPUs within a "domain" have the same nominal_freq/perf). At which point the benefit 
of caching these ratios might diminish.

Thoughts, Gautham, Mario?

Thanks,
Dhananjay

> 
> .. and have a couple of helper functions:
> 
> /* perf to freq conversion */
> static inline unsigned int perf_to_freq(perf)
> {
> 	return (perf * freq_mult_factor) >> FREQ_SHIFT;
> }
> 
> 
> /* freq to perf conversion */
> static inline unsigned int freq_to_perf(freq)
> {
> 	return (freq * perf_mult_factor) >> PERF_SHIFT;
> }
> 
> 
>> +	max_freq = div_u64((u64)highest_perf * nominal_freq, nominal_perf);
> 
> Then,
>         max_freq = perf_to_freq(highest_perf);
> 	min_freq = perf_to_freq(lowest_non_linear_perf);
> 
> 
> and so on.
> 
> This should just work.
> 
> 
>>  
>>  	lowest_nonlinear_perf = READ_ONCE(cpudata->lowest_nonlinear_perf);
>>  	lowest_nonlinear_ratio = div_u64(lowest_nonlinear_perf << SCHED_CAPACITY_SHIFT,
>> -- 
> 
> --
> Thanks and Regards
> gautham.