Message-ID: <c8b2d107-e7a3-47c0-afe8-1c256e0fb1e7@amd.com>
Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2025 13:06:50 -0600
From: Mario Limonciello <mario.limonciello@....com>
To: Dhananjay Ugwekar <Dhananjay.Ugwekar@....com>,
 "Gautham R. Shenoy" <gautham.shenoy@....com>,
 Naresh Solanki <naresh.solanki@...ements.com>
Cc: Huang Rui <ray.huang@....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 12/26/2024 23:49, Dhananjay Ugwekar wrote:
> 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?

No; in this day of heterogeneous designs I don't think that you can make 
that assumption, so yes if we had helpers they would have to apply to a 
group of CPUs, and I agree at that point the caching isn't very 
beneficial anymore.

If the main argument is to make it easier to follow we could have some 
macros though?

> 
> 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.
> 

Powered by blists - more mailing lists