lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Sep]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/2] Modify cpupower to schedule itself on cores it is reading MSRs from
From
Date
On 9/18/19 10:34 AM, Natarajan, Janakarajan wrote:
> Modify cpupower to schedule itself on each of the cpus in the system and
> then get the APERF/MPERF register values.
>
> This is advantageous because an IPI is not generated when a read_msr() is
> executed on the local logical CPU thereby reducing the chance of having
> APERF and MPERF being out of sync.

Somehow this doesn't read right. Is this that you are trying to avoid
APERF and MPERF being out of sync with this change?

This description is rather confusing.

>
> Signed-off-by: Janakarajan Natarajan <Janakarajan.Natarajan@amd.com>
> ---
> .../utils/idle_monitor/mperf_monitor.c | 38 ++++++++++++++-----
> 1 file changed, 28 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/tools/power/cpupower/utils/idle_monitor/mperf_monitor.c b/tools/power/cpupower/utils/idle_monitor/mperf_monitor.c
> index 44806a6dae11..8b072e39c897 100644
> --- a/tools/power/cpupower/utils/idle_monitor/mperf_monitor.c
> +++ b/tools/power/cpupower/utils/idle_monitor/mperf_monitor.c
> @@ -10,6 +10,7 @@
> #include <stdlib.h>
> #include <string.h>
> #include <limits.h>
> +#include <sched.h>
>
> #include <cpufreq.h>
>
> @@ -86,15 +87,33 @@ static int mperf_get_tsc(unsigned long long *tsc)
> return ret;
> }
>
> +static int get_aperf_mperf(int cpu, unsigned long long *aval,
> + unsigned long long *mval)
> +{
> + cpu_set_t set;
> + int ret;
> +
> + CPU_ZERO(&set);
> + CPU_SET(cpu, &set);
> + if (sched_setaffinity(getpid(), sizeof(set), &set) == -1) {
> + dprint("Could not migrate to cpu: %d\n", cpu);
> + return 1;
> + }
> +
> + ret = read_msr(cpu, MSR_APERF, aval);
> + ret |= read_msr(cpu, MSR_MPERF, mval);
> +
> + return ret;
> +}
> +
> static int mperf_init_stats(unsigned int cpu)
> {
> - unsigned long long val;
> + unsigned long long aval, mval;
> int ret;
>
> - ret = read_msr(cpu, MSR_APERF, &val);
> - aperf_previous_count[cpu] = val;
> - ret |= read_msr(cpu, MSR_MPERF, &val);
> - mperf_previous_count[cpu] = val;
> + ret = get_aperf_mperf(cpu, &aval, &mval);

get_aperf_mperf() could return error right? It returns 1 when
sched_setaffinity() fails. Shouldn't the return value checked,
instead of using aval and mval?

> + aperf_previous_count[cpu] = aval;
> + mperf_previous_count[cpu] = mval;
> is_valid[cpu] = !ret;
>
> return 0;
> @@ -102,13 +121,12 @@ static int mperf_init_stats(unsigned int cpu)
>
> static int mperf_measure_stats(unsigned int cpu)
> {
> - unsigned long long val;
> + unsigned long long aval, mval;
> int ret;
>
> - ret = read_msr(cpu, MSR_APERF, &val);
> - aperf_current_count[cpu] = val;
> - ret |= read_msr(cpu, MSR_MPERF, &val);
> - mperf_current_count[cpu] = val;
> + ret = get_aperf_mperf(cpu, &aval, &mval);

Same comments as above here.

> + aperf_current_count[cpu] = aval;
> + mperf_current_count[cpu] = mval;
> is_valid[cpu] = !ret;
>
> return 0;
>

thanks,
-- Shuah

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-09-27 21:00    [W:0.077 / U:0.184 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site