lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Nov]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] x86 / CPU: Always show current CPU frequency in /proc/cpuinfo
Date
On Friday, November 17, 2017 5:27:07 AM CET WANG Chao wrote:
> On 11/16/17 at 02:54P, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Thursday, November 16, 2017 10:50:36 AM CET WANG Chao wrote:
> > > On 11/16/17 at 01:24P, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday, November 15, 2017 10:33:47 AM CET WANG Chao wrote:
> > > > > On 11/15/17 at 02:13P, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > > > > From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > After commit 890da9cf0983 (Revert "x86: do not use cpufreq_quick_get()
> > > > > > for /proc/cpuinfo "cpu MHz"") the "cpu MHz" number in /proc/cpuinfo
> > > > > > on x86 can be either the nominal CPU frequency (which is constant)
> > > > > > or the frequency most recently requested by a scaling governor in
> > > > > > cpufreq, depending on the cpufreq configuration. That is somewhat
> > > > > > inconsistent and is different from what it was before 4.13, so in
> > > > > > order to restore the previous behavior, make it report the current
> > > > > > CPU frequency like the scaling_cur_freq sysfs file in cpufreq.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > To that end, modify the /proc/cpuinfo implementation on x86 to use
> > > > > > aperfmperf_snapshot_khz() to snapshot the APERF and MPERF feedback
> > > > > > registers, if available, and use their values to compute the CPU
> > > > > > frequency to be reported as "cpu MHz".
> > > > > >
> > > > > > However, do that carefully enough to avoid accumulating delays that
> > > > > > lead to unacceptable access times for /proc/cpuinfo on systems with
> > > > > > many CPUs. Run aperfmperf_snapshot_khz() once on all CPUs
> > > > > > asynchronously at the /proc/cpuinfo open time, add a single delay
> > > > > > upfront (if necessary) at that point and simply compute the current
> > > > > > frequency while running show_cpuinfo() for each individual CPU.
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi, Rafael
> > > > >
> > > > > I tested your patch. It's much faster.
> > > > >
> > > > > But from what I got, calling aperfmperf_snapshot_khz() asynchronously
> > > > > with 10ms sleep takes much longer than calling aperfmperf_snapshot_khz()
> > > > > synchronously.
> > > > >
> > > > > Here's my result on 64 CPUs:
> > > > >
> > > > > - async aperfmperf_snapshot_khz() w/ 10ms sleep:
> > > > >
> > > > > # time cat /proc/cpuinfo > /dev/null
> > > > > real 0m0.014s
> > > > > user 0m0.000s
> > > > > sys 0m0.002s
> > > > >
> > > > > - sync aperfmperf_snapshot_khz() w/o any sleep:
> > > > >
> > > > > # time cat /proc/cpuinfo > /dev/null
> > > > > real 0m0.002s
> > > > > user 0m0.000s
> > > > > sys 0m0.002s
> > > >
> > > > Sure, but the delay is there, because without it the computed frequency
> > > > may be way off for at least one of the CPUs.
> > >
> > > Thanks, I understand now. In this case, The 10ms delay turns out to be
> > > the interval of measuring aperf and mperf and computing their deltas.
> > >
> > > Last question though, is 10ms best practice or can we make it shorter,
> > > say 5ms?
> >
> > Experimentally, I found 5 ms to be slightly too short. It all depends on
> > how accurate the numbers are expected to be, however, so there is some room
> > for adjustments.
> >
> > Regardless, I'd prefer to start with 10 ms as that is what has been used in
> > intel_pstate for quite a long time at least and adjust later if need be.
>
> Sure. Thanks for your explanation.
>
> This patch looks good to me.
>
> Reviewed-by: WANG Chao <chao.wang@ucloud.cn>

Thanks for the reviews, much appreciated!

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-11-17 17:19    [W:0.061 / U:0.544 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site