linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 6/6] cpufreq: CPPC: Support for autonomous selection in cppc

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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <256a7620-2d21-4474-b64d-b1e8effbc975@arm.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2025 15:49:41 +0100
From: Pierre Gondois <pierre.gondois@....com>
To: "zhenglifeng (A)" <zhenglifeng1@...wei.com>,
 Mario Limonciello <mario.limonciello@....com>,
 Russell Haley <yumpusamongus@...il.com>, rafael@...nel.org, lenb@...nel.org,
 robert.moore@...el.com, viresh.kumar@...aro.org
Cc: acpica-devel@...ts.linux.dev, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, linuxarm@...wei.com,
 jonathan.cameron@...wei.com, gautham.shenoy@....com, ray.huang@....com,
 zhanjie9@...ilicon.com, lihuisong@...wei.com, hepeng68@...wei.com,
 fanghao11@...wei.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 6/6] cpufreq: CPPC: Support for autonomous selection in
 cppc_cpufreq



On 1/20/25 04:15, zhenglifeng (A) wrote:
> On 2025/1/17 22:30, Mario Limonciello wrote:
> 
>> On 1/16/2025 21:11, zhenglifeng (A) wrote:
>>> On 2025/1/16 19:39, Russell Haley wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hello,
>>>>
>>>> I noticed something here just as a user casually browsing the mailing list.
>>>>
>>>> On 1/13/25 6:21 AM, Lifeng Zheng wrote:
>>>>> Add sysfs interfaces for CPPC autonomous selection in the cppc_cpufreq
>>>>> driver.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Lifeng Zheng <zhenglifeng1@...wei.com>
>>>>> ---
>>>>>    .../ABI/testing/sysfs-devices-system-cpu      |  54 +++++++++
>>>>>    drivers/cpufreq/cppc_cpufreq.c                | 109 ++++++++++++++++++
>>>>>    2 files changed, 163 insertions(+)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-devices-system-cpu b/Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-devices-system-cpu
>>>>> index 206079d3bd5b..3d87c3bb3fe2 100644
>>>>> --- a/Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-devices-system-cpu
>>>>> +++ b/Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-devices-system-cpu
>>>>> @@ -268,6 +268,60 @@ Description:    Discover CPUs in the same CPU frequency coordination domain
>>>>>            This file is only present if the acpi-cpufreq or the cppc-cpufreq
>>>>>            drivers are in use.
>>>>>    
>>>>
>>>> [...snip...]
>>>>
>>>>> +What:        /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpuX/cpufreq/energy_perf
>>>>> +Date:        October 2024
>>>>> +Contact:    linux-pm@...r.kernel.org
>>>>> +Description:    Energy performance preference
>>>>> +
>>>>> +        Read/write an 8-bit integer from/to this file. This file
>>>>> +        represents a range of values from 0 (performance preference) to
>>>>> +        0xFF (energy efficiency preference) that influences the rate of
>>>>> +        performance increase/decrease and the result of the hardware's
>>>>> +        energy efficiency and performance optimization policies.
>>>>> +
>>>>> +        Writing to this file only has meaning when Autonomous Selection is
>>>>> +        enabled.
>>>>> +
>>>>> +        This file only presents if the cppc-cpufreq driver is in use.
>>>>
>>>> In intel_pstate driver, there is file with near-identical semantics:
>>>>
>>>> /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpuX/cpufreq/energy_performance_preference
>>>>
>>>> It also accepts a few string arguments and converts them to integers.
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps the same name should be used, and the semantics made exactly
>>>> identical, and then it could be documented as present for either
>>>> cppc_cpufreq OR intel_pstate?
>>>>
>>>> I think would be more elegant if userspace tooling could Just Work with
>>>> either driver.
>>>>
>>>> One might object that the frequency selection behavior that results from
>>>> any particular value of the register itself might be different, but they
>>>> are *already* different between Intel's P and E-cores in the same CPU
>>>> package. (Ugh.)
>>>
>>> Yes, I should use the same name. Thanks.
>>>
>>> As for accepting string arguments and converting them to integers, I don't
>>> think it is necessary. It'll be a litte confused if someone writes a raw
>>> value and reads a string I think. I prefer to let users freely set this
>>> value.
>>>
>>> In addition, there are many differences between the implementations of
>>> energy_performance_preference in intel_pstate and cppc_cpufreq (and
>>> amd-pstate...). It is really difficult to explain all this differences in
>>> this document. So I'll leave it to be documented as present for
>>> cppc_cpufreq only.
>>
>> At least the interface to userspace I think we should do the best we can to be the same between all the drivers if possible.
>>
>> For example; I've got a patch that I may bring up in a future kernel cycle that adds raw integer writes to amd-pstates energy_performance_profile to behave the same way intel-pstate does.
> 
> I agree that it's better to keep this interface consistent across different
> drivers. But in my opinion, the implementation of intel_pstate
> energy_performance_preference is not really nice. Someone may write a raw
> value but read a string, or read strings for some values and read raw
> values for some other values. It is inconsistent. It may be better to use
> some other implementation, such as seperating the operations of r/w strings
> and raw values into two files.

I agree it would be better to be sure of the type to expect when reading the
energy_performance_preference file. The epp values in the range 0-255 with 0
being the performance value for all interfaces.

In the current epp strings, it seems there is a big gap between the PERFORMANCE
and the BALANCE_PERFORMANCE strings. Maybe it would be good to complete it:
EPP_PERFORMANCE		0x00
EPP_BALANCE_PERFORMANCE	0x40      // state value changed
EPP_BALANCE		0x80      // new state
EPP_BALANCE_POWERSAVE	0xC0
EPP_POWERSAVE		0xFF

NIT: The mapping seems to be slightly different for intel_pstate and amd-pstate
currently:
drivers/cpufreq/amd-pstate.c
#define AMD_CPPC_EPP_PERFORMANCE		0x00
#define AMD_CPPC_EPP_BALANCE_PERFORMANCE	0x80
#define AMD_CPPC_EPP_BALANCE_POWERSAVE		0xBF
#define AMD_CPPC_EPP_POWERSAVE			0xFF

arch/x86/include/asm/msr-index.h
#define HWP_EPP_PERFORMANCE		0x00
#define HWP_EPP_BALANCE_PERFORMANCE	0x80
#define HWP_EPP_BALANCE_POWERSAVE	0xC0   <------ Different from AMD_CPPC_EPP_BALANCE_POWERSAVE
#define HWP_EPP_POWERSAVE		0xFF

> 
> I think it's better to consult Rafael and Viresh about how this should
> evolve.

Yes indeed