lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2021]   [Apr]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v3] x86, sched: Fix the AMD CPPC maximum perf on some specific generations
On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 11:20:37PM +0800, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 5:07 PM Huang Rui <ray.huang@amd.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 09:53:37PM +0800, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 2:52 PM Huang Rui <ray.huang@amd.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 08:09:49PM +0800, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > > > On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 4:40 AM Huang Rui <ray.huang@amd.com> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Some AMD Ryzen generations has different calculation method on maximum
> > > > > > perf. 255 is not for all asics, some specific generations should use 166
> > > > > > as the maximum perf. Otherwise, it will report incorrect frequency value
> > > > > > like below:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ~ $B"* (B lscpu | grep MHz
> > > > > > CPU MHz: 3400.000
> > > > > > CPU max MHz: 7228.3198
> > > > > > CPU min MHz: 2200.0000
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Fixes: 41ea667227ba ("x86, sched: Calculate frequency invariance for AMD systems")
> > > > > > Fixes: 3c55e94c0ade ("cpufreq: ACPI: Extend frequency tables to cover boost frequencies")
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Reported-by: Jason Bagavatsingham <jason.bagavatsingham@gmail.com>
> > > > > > Tested-by: Jason Bagavatsingham <jason.bagavatsingham@gmail.com>
> > > > > > Bugzilla: https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fbugzilla.kernel.org%2Fshow_bug.cgi%3Fid%3D211791&amp;data=04%7C01%7Cray.huang%40amd.com%7C5e4ef90268394256017508d9066b6011%7C3dd8961fe4884e608e11a82d994e183d%7C0%7C0%7C637547880536218729%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&amp;sdata=6UKHrjewjid2pnAFJTXen1xPVSwIAOkcDdiQMfORZmw%3D&amp;reserved=0
> > > > > > Signed-off-by: Huang Rui <ray.huang@amd.com>
> > > > > > Cc: Alex Deucher <alexander.deucher@amd.com>
> > > > > > Cc: Nathan Fontenot <nathan.fontenot@amd.com>
> > > > > > Cc: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
> > > > > > Cc: Borislav Petkov <bp@suse.de>
> > > > > > Cc: x86@kernel.org
> > > > > > Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
> > > > > > ---
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Changes from V1 -> V2:
> > > > > > - Enhance the commit message.
> > > > > > - Move amd_get_highest_perf() into amd.c.
> > > > > > - Refine the implementation of switch-case.
> > > > > > - Cc stable mail list.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Changes from V2 -> V3:
> > > > > > - Move the update into cppc_get_perf_caps() to correct the highest perf value in
> > > > > > the API.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ---
> > > > > > arch/x86/include/asm/processor.h | 2 ++
> > > > > > arch/x86/kernel/cpu/amd.c | 22 ++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > > > > drivers/acpi/cppc_acpi.c | 8 ++++++--
> > > > > > 3 files changed, 30 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/processor.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/processor.h
> > > > > > index f1b9ed5efaa9..908bcaea1361 100644
> > > > > > --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/processor.h
> > > > > > +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/processor.h
> > > > > > @@ -804,8 +804,10 @@ DECLARE_PER_CPU(u64, msr_misc_features_shadow);
> > > > > >
> > > > > > #ifdef CONFIG_CPU_SUP_AMD
> > > > > > extern u32 amd_get_nodes_per_socket(void);
> > > > > > +extern u32 amd_get_highest_perf(void);
> > > > > > #else
> > > > > > static inline u32 amd_get_nodes_per_socket(void) { return 0; }
> > > > > > +static inline u32 amd_get_highest_perf(void) { return 0; }
> > > > > > #endif
> > > > > >
> > > > > > static inline uint32_t hypervisor_cpuid_base(const char *sig, uint32_t leaves)
> > > > > > diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/amd.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/amd.c
> > > > > > index 347a956f71ca..aadb691d9357 100644
> > > > > > --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/amd.c
> > > > > > +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/amd.c
> > > > > > @@ -1170,3 +1170,25 @@ void set_dr_addr_mask(unsigned long mask, int dr)
> > > > > > break;
> > > > > > }
> > > > > > }
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > +u32 amd_get_highest_perf(void)
> > > > > > +{
> > > > > > + struct cpuinfo_x86 *c = &boot_cpu_data;
> > > > > > + u32 cppc_max_perf = 225;
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > + switch (c->x86) {
> > > > > > + case 0x17:
> > > > > > + if ((c->x86_model >= 0x30 && c->x86_model < 0x40) ||
> > > > > > + (c->x86_model >= 0x70 && c->x86_model < 0x80))
> > > > > > + cppc_max_perf = 166;
> > > > > > + break;
> > > > > > + case 0x19:
> > > > > > + if ((c->x86_model >= 0x20 && c->x86_model < 0x30) ||
> > > > > > + (c->x86_model >= 0x40 && c->x86_model < 0x70))
> > > > > > + cppc_max_perf = 166;
> > > > > > + break;
> > > > > > + }
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > + return cppc_max_perf;
> > > > > > +}
> > > > > > +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(amd_get_highest_perf);
> > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/acpi/cppc_acpi.c b/drivers/acpi/cppc_acpi.c
> > > > > > index 69057fcd2c04..58e72b6e222f 100644
> > > > > > --- a/drivers/acpi/cppc_acpi.c
> > > > > > +++ b/drivers/acpi/cppc_acpi.c
> > > > > > @@ -1107,8 +1107,12 @@ int cppc_get_perf_caps(int cpunum, struct cppc_perf_caps *perf_caps)
> > > > > > }
> > > > > > }
> > > > > >
> > > > > > - cpc_read(cpunum, highest_reg, &high);
> > > > > > - perf_caps->highest_perf = high;
> > > > > > + if (boot_cpu_data.x86_vendor == X86_VENDOR_AMD) {
> > > > >
> > > > > This is a generic arch-independent file.
> > > > >
> > > > > Can we avoid adding the x86-specific check here?
> > > >
> > > > OK, I see, it will be used by ARM as well.
> > > >
> > > > Can I rollback to implementation of V2:
> > > >
> > > > https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flore.kernel.org%2Fr%2F20210421023807.1540290-1-ray.huang%40amd.com&amp;data=04%7C01%7Cray.huang%40amd.com%7C5e4ef90268394256017508d9066b6011%7C3dd8961fe4884e608e11a82d994e183d%7C0%7C0%7C637547880536218729%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&amp;sdata=jytSyFAHiOc3JdkHyTkD86Vsp9%2FT9e2OENqOTkDtt5M%3D&amp;reserved=0
> > >
> > > This would work IMO, but it can be simplified somewhat AFAICS.
> > >
> > > The obvious drawback is that amd_get_highest_perf() would need to be
> > > called directly wherever the CPPC highest perf is needed and the
> > > vendor may be AMD.
> >
> > Should I send V4 to continue review (fallback to V2 actually) or you can
> > comment it on V2 directly?
>
> Done, thanks!

Thank you!

Ray

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2021-04-25 09:14    [W:0.067 / U:0.340 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site