lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Jun]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2] cpufreq / CPPC: Add cpuinfo_cur_freq support for CPPC
From
Date
Hi Prakash,

Thanks for the review.

On 06/19/2018 01:51 AM, Prakash, Prashanth wrote:
> External Email
>
> Hi George,
>
> On 6/15/2018 4:03 AM, George Cherian wrote:
>> Per Section 8.4.7.1.3 of ACPI 6.2, The platform provides performance
>> feedback via set of performance counters. To determine the actual
>> performance level delivered over time, OSPM may read a set of
>> performance counters from the Reference Performance Counter Register
>> and the Delivered Performance Counter Register.
>>
>> OSPM calculates the delivered performance over a given time period by
>> taking a beginning and ending snapshot of both the reference and
>> delivered performance counters, and calculating:
>>
>> delivered_perf = reference_perf X (delta of delivered_perf counter / delta of reference_perf counter).
>>
>> Implement the above and hook this to the cpufreq->get method.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: George Cherian <george.cherian@cavium.com>
>> Acked-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
>> ---
>> drivers/cpufreq/cppc_cpufreq.c | 71 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> 1 file changed, 71 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cppc_cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cppc_cpufreq.c
>> index 3464580..3fe7625 100644
>> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cppc_cpufreq.c
>> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cppc_cpufreq.c
>> @@ -296,10 +296,81 @@ static int cppc_cpufreq_cpu_init(struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
>> return ret;
>> }
>>
>> +static int cppc_get_rate_from_fbctrs(struct cppc_cpudata *cpu,
>> + struct cppc_perf_fb_ctrs fb_ctrs_t0,
>> + struct cppc_perf_fb_ctrs fb_ctrs_t1)
>> +{
>> + u64 delta_reference, delta_delivered;
>> + u64 reference_perf, delivered_perf;
>> +
>> + reference_perf = fb_ctrs_t0.reference_perf;
>> + if (fb_ctrs_t1.reference > fb_ctrs_t0.reference) {
>> + delta_reference = fb_ctrs_t1.reference - fb_ctrs_t0.reference;
>> + } else {
> There should be another if () here to check if the reference counters are equal.
> We cannot assume, there was a overflow when the counters are equal. As I
> mentioned on last patch, the counters *may* pause in idle states.
My Bad... I somehow, over looked that point. In case of delta_reference
being zero there is actually a check below to avoid divide-by-zero.
There I returned reference perf instead of desired perf, same I will
take care in v3. Isn't that sufficient or is there a need for an
explicit check here for delta = zero?

Moreover the delta calculation am planning to replace with single
line comparison in v3 for both normal and overflow case.
>> + /*
>> + * Counters would have wrapped-around
>> + * We also need to find whether the low level fw
>> + * maintains 32 bit or 64 bit counters, to calculate
>> + * the correct delta.
>> + */
>> + if (fb_ctrs_t0.reference > (~(u32)0))
>> + delta_reference = (~((u64)0) - fb_ctrs_t0.reference) +
>> + fb_ctrs_t1.reference;
>> + else
>> + delta_reference = (~((u32)0) - fb_ctrs_t0.reference) +
>> + fb_ctrs_t1.reference;
>> + }
>> +
>> + if (fb_ctrs_t1.delivered > fb_ctrs_t0.delivered) {
>> + delta_delivered = fb_ctrs_t1.delivered - fb_ctrs_t0.delivered;
>> + } else {
>> + /*
>> + * Counters would have wrapped-around
>> + * We also need to find whether the low level fw
>> + * maintains 32 bit or 64 bit counters, to calculate
>> + * the correct delta.
>> + */
>> + if (fb_ctrs_t0.delivered > (~(u32)0))
>> + delta_delivered = (~((u64)0) - fb_ctrs_t0.delivered) +
>> + fb_ctrs_t1.delivered;
>> + else
>> + delta_delivered = (~((u32)0) - fb_ctrs_t0.delivered) +
>> + fb_ctrs_t1.delivered;
>> + }
>> +
>> + if (delta_reference) /* Check to avoid divide-by zero */
>> + delivered_perf = (reference_perf * delta_delivered) /
>> + delta_reference;
>> + else
>> + delivered_perf = reference_perf;
>
> If we cannot compute delivered performance then we should return
> desired/requested perf and not reference_perf.
>
Noted!!
>> +
>> + return cppc_cpufreq_perf_to_khz(cpu, delivered_perf);
>> +}
>> +
>> +static unsigned int cppc_cpufreq_get_rate(unsigned int cpunum)
>> +{
>> + struct cppc_perf_fb_ctrs fb_ctrs_t0 = {0}, fb_ctrs_t1 = {0};
>> + struct cppc_cpudata *cpu = all_cpu_data[cpunum];
>> + int ret;
>> +
>> + ret = cppc_get_perf_ctrs(cpunum, &fb_ctrs_t0);
>> + if (ret)
>> + return ret;
>> +
>> + udelay(2); /* 2usec delay between sampling */
>> +
>> + ret = cppc_get_perf_ctrs(cpunum, &fb_ctrs_t1);
>> + if (ret)
>> + return ret;
>> +
>> + return cppc_get_rate_from_fbctrs(cpu, fb_ctrs_t0, fb_ctrs_t1);
>> +}
>> +
>> static struct cpufreq_driver cppc_cpufreq_driver = {
>> .flags = CPUFREQ_CONST_LOOPS,
>> .verify = cppc_verify_policy,
>> .target = cppc_cpufreq_set_target,
>> + .get = cppc_cpufreq_get_rate,
>> .init = cppc_cpufreq_cpu_init,
>> .stop_cpu = cppc_cpufreq_stop_cpu,
>> .name = "cppc_cpufreq",
>
> Thanks,
> Prashanth
>

Thanks,
-George

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-06-20 11:18    [W:0.070 / U:0.152 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site