Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 3 Jun 2020 11:07:27 +0100 | From | Sudeep Holla <> | Subject | Re: [Question]: about 'cpuinfo_cur_freq' shown in sysfs when the CPU is in idle state |
| |
On Wed, Jun 03, 2020 at 01:22:00PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 02-06-20, 11:34, Xiongfeng Wang wrote: > > Hi Viresh, > > > > Sorry to disturb you about another problem as follows. > > > > CPPC use the increment of Desired Performance counter and Reference Performance > > counter to get the CPU frequency and show it in sysfs through > > 'cpuinfo_cur_freq'. But ACPI CPPC doesn't specifically define the behavior of > > these two counters when the CPU is in idle state, such as stop incrementing when > > the CPU is in idle state. > > > > ARMv8.4 Extension inctroduced support for the Activity Monitors Unit (AMU). The > > processor frequency cycles and constant frequency cycles in AMU can be used as > > Delivered Performance counter and Reference Performance counter. These two > > counter in AMU does not increase when the PE is in WFI or WFE. So the increment > > is zero when the PE is in WFI/WFE. This cause no issue because > > 'cppc_get_rate_from_fbctrs()' in cppc_cpufreq driver will check the increment > > and return the desired performance if the increment is zero. > > > > But when the CPU goes into power down idle state, accessing these two counters > > in AMU by memory-mapped address will return zero. Such as CPU1 went into power > > down idle state and CPU0 try to get the frequency of CPU1. In this situation, > > will display a very big value for 'cpuinfo_cur_freq' in sysfs. Do you have some > > advice about this problem ? > > > > I was thinking about an idea as follows. We can run 'cppc_cpufreq_get_rate()' on > > the CPU to be measured, so that we can make sure the CPU is in C0 state when we > > access the two counters. Also we can return the actual frequency rather than > > desired performance when the CPU is in WFI/WFE. But this modification will > > change the existing logical and I am not sure if this will cause some bad effect. > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cppc_cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cppc_cpufreq.c > > index 257d726..ded3bcc 100644 > > --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cppc_cpufreq.c > > +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cppc_cpufreq.c > > @@ -396,9 +396,10 @@ static int cppc_get_rate_from_fbctrs(struct cppc_cpudata *cpu, > > return cppc_cpufreq_perf_to_khz(cpu, delivered_perf); > > } > > > > -static unsigned int cppc_cpufreq_get_rate(unsigned int cpunum) > > +static int cppc_cpufreq_get_rate_cpu(void *info) > > { > > struct cppc_perf_fb_ctrs fb_ctrs_t0 = {0}, fb_ctrs_t1 = {0}; > > + unsigned int cpunum = *(unsigned int *)info; > > struct cppc_cpudata *cpu = all_cpu_data[cpunum]; > > int ret; > > > > @@ -418,6 +419,22 @@ static unsigned int cppc_cpufreq_get_rate(unsigned int cpunum) > > return cppc_get_rate_from_fbctrs(cpu, fb_ctrs_t0, fb_ctrs_t1); > > } > > > > +static unsigned int cppc_cpufreq_get_rate(unsigned int cpunum) > > +{ > > + unsigned int ret; > > + > > + ret = smp_call_on_cpu(cpunum, cppc_cpufreq_get_rate_cpu, &cpunum, true); > > + > > + /* > > + * convert negative error code to zero, otherwise we will display > > + * an odd value for 'cpuinfo_cur_freq' in sysfs > > + */ > > + if (ret < 0) > > + ret = 0; > > + > > + return ret; > > +} > > + > > static int cppc_cpufreq_set_boost(struct cpufreq_policy *policy, int state) > > { > > struct cppc_cpudata *cpudata; > > I don't see any other sane solution, even if this brings the CPU back > to normal state and waste power. We should be able to reliably provide > value to userspace. > > Rafael / Sudeep: What you do say ?
Agreed on returning 0 as it aligns with the semantics followed. We can't return the last set/fetched value as it fails to align with the values returned when CPU is not idle.
But I have another question. If we can detect that CPPC on some platforms rely on CPU registers(I assume FFH registers here and not system/io/... type of GAS registers), can we set dvfs_on_any_cpu(can't recall exact flag name) to false if not already done to prevent such issues. Or I am talking non-sense as it may be applicable only for _set operation and not _get.
-- Regards, Sudeep
| |