Received: by 2002:ac0:8845:0:0:0:0:0 with SMTP id g63csp1059612img; Thu, 28 Feb 2019 12:18:55 -0800 (PST) X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzuSMKqk82w0nkS0us7p86Ik46nGk04E2n3xe2ckoWwQK5IWMcecp2u3ZNHwHwzHSLUstUk X-Received: by 2002:a63:a510:: with SMTP id n16mr940776pgf.443.1551385135153; Thu, 28 Feb 2019 12:18:55 -0800 (PST) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1551385135; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=Ufab3yh6Dsc5Z2ZKkjUW+yjpBNYH0DeQoosyKJdGnVHecGO8qoicOzi1MKBfW+MKsh Kv9EP5ODLqC31C+OSK63/uvnHy9CapahI4dVBQLA4kuTurKKUPg84kFwkr5XEbmcbGfX YzWVm4+VsxuwyLlcd4tRVxj98SGLQzixuL2kKa+u06bgoOB+Is1MohPNbE9fXL37ikPk 3EWhrbj0i75BTxvz4LNRC+ob2Igy0nT8ddGM+IRyXrKWLiPr8TwyUlefFI4yAdMPBNIY 4GFqqKj0hbj/bHgYsBCUy/MxvHO0bkc4pOpymt0gSJjvDebVhAfGeXNd+6xZ/aA7d4gw F9BA== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:sender:user-agent:in-reply-to :content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id:subject:cc :to:from:date; bh=gE8reDyppsrSG9GZ/eStLkkJzIrXbh/Crm+q3Xa3RYI=; b=soZ+FykAUFUcMYw8tAbP2ZiUMdjVbJhfcV/XDKVvUuTYSy+DahSJC9QOQcxOQjAcfR I3pxPyiB/PE3291wox5Vju3ojYQuEvKpDWsMl3aNT3avEej4mUxUXMAak8HFBgLPy8yI /2eDphIPlXzUL0UFWqtTvaLj0aa2Qy4DkaLKrK4udZvuUAd6/Mx1Ot/BSF3YhhqQtSrC o+wmRDYkZFad9p829xJ5gpQUruTD+3E52PphNWYiqQGMhGqfQXY9bRqKjii4fBYLXe6o LKweGV8uMG3a8OvO1tWYgT3zACbLCHWA/tXw7bF1R0o30/6NpESTq0NegYoBOAty9UZV jQFw== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=intel.com Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org. [209.132.180.67]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id f1si7058662pff.246.2019.02.28.12.18.39; Thu, 28 Feb 2019 12:18:55 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=intel.com Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S2388260AbfB1R43 (ORCPT + 99 others); Thu, 28 Feb 2019 12:56:29 -0500 Received: from mga01.intel.com ([192.55.52.88]:49281 "EHLO mga01.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726214AbfB1R42 (ORCPT ); Thu, 28 Feb 2019 12:56:28 -0500 X-Amp-Result: UNKNOWN X-Amp-Original-Verdict: FILE UNKNOWN X-Amp-File-Uploaded: False Received: from orsmga004.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.38]) by fmsmga101.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 28 Feb 2019 09:55:57 -0800 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.58,423,1544515200"; d="scan'208";a="278643336" Received: from chenyu-office.sh.intel.com ([10.239.158.163]) by orsmga004.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 28 Feb 2019 09:55:55 -0800 Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2019 02:04:48 +0800 From: Yu Chen To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Len Brown , Viresh Kumar , Srinivas Pandruvada , ACPI Devel Maling List , Linux PM , Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: [PATCH][RFC] ACPI: add "processor.broadcast_ppc" hook to broadcast _PPC to all online CPUs Message-ID: <20190228180448.GB31788@chenyu-office.sh.intel.com> References: <20190209120232.21582-1-yu.c.chen@intel.com> <20190213165242.GA30385@chenyu-office.sh.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 11:21:13AM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 5:44 PM Yu Chen wrote: > > > > Hi Rafael, > > On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 11:41:26AM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > On Sat, Feb 9, 2019 at 12:54 PM Chen Yu wrote: > > > > > > > > On Dell Inc. XPS13 9333, the BIOS changes the value of > > > > MSR_IA32_MISC_ENABLE_TURBO_DISABLE at runtime (e.g., when > > > > the power source changes), the maximum frequency of the > > > > CPU is not updated accordingly. This is due to the policy's > > > > cpuinfo.max is not updated when _PPC notifier fires. > > > > > > > > Fix this problem by updating the policy's cpuinfo.max > > > > and broadcast the _PPC notifier to all online CPUs. > > > > > > > > Link: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=200759 > > > > Reported-and-tested-by: Gabriele Mazzotta > > > > Originally-by: Srinivas Pandruvada > > > > Signed-off-by: Chen Yu > > > > --- > > > > drivers/acpi/processor_perflib.c | 16 ++++++++++++++-- > > > > drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c | 2 ++ > > > > drivers/cpufreq/intel_pstate.c | 15 ++++++++++++++- > > > > 3 files changed, 30 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/acpi/processor_perflib.c b/drivers/acpi/processor_perflib.c > > > > index a303fd0e108c..737dbf5aa7f7 100644 > > > > --- a/drivers/acpi/processor_perflib.c > > > > +++ b/drivers/acpi/processor_perflib.c > > > > @@ -63,6 +63,10 @@ module_param(ignore_ppc, int, 0644); > > > > MODULE_PARM_DESC(ignore_ppc, "If the frequency of your machine gets wrongly" \ > > > > "limited by BIOS, this should help"); > > > > > > > > +static int broadcast_ppc; > > > > +module_param(broadcast_ppc, int, 0644); > > > > +MODULE_PARM_DESC(broadcast_ppc, "Broadcast the ppc to all online CPUs"); > > > > + > > > > #define PPC_REGISTERED 1 > > > > #define PPC_IN_USE 2 > > > > > > > > @@ -180,8 +184,16 @@ void acpi_processor_ppc_has_changed(struct acpi_processor *pr, int event_flag) > > > > else > > > > acpi_processor_ppc_ost(pr->handle, 0); > > > > } > > > > - if (ret >= 0) > > > > - cpufreq_update_policy(pr->id); > > > > + if (ret >= 0) { > > > > + if (broadcast_ppc) { > > > > + int cpu; > > > > + > > > > + for_each_possible_cpu(cpu) > > > > + cpufreq_update_policy(cpu); > > > > + } else { > > > > + cpufreq_update_policy(pr->id); > > > > + } > > > > + } > > > > } > > > > > > > > int acpi_processor_get_bios_limit(int cpu, unsigned int *limit) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c > > > > index e35a886e00bc..95e08816b512 100644 > > > > --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c > > > > +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c > > > > @@ -2237,6 +2237,8 @@ static int cpufreq_set_policy(struct cpufreq_policy *policy, > > > > > > > > policy->min = new_policy->min; > > > > policy->max = new_policy->max; > > > > + policy->cpuinfo.max_freq = new_policy->cpuinfo.max_freq; > > > > + policy->cpuinfo.min_freq = new_policy->cpuinfo.min_freq; > > > > trace_cpu_frequency_limits(policy); > > > > > > > > policy->cached_target_freq = UINT_MAX; > > > > diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/intel_pstate.c b/drivers/cpufreq/intel_pstate.c > > > > index dd66decf2087..e1881313c396 100644 > > > > --- a/drivers/cpufreq/intel_pstate.c > > > > +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/intel_pstate.c > > > > @@ -2081,11 +2081,24 @@ static void intel_pstate_adjust_policy_max(struct cpufreq_policy *policy, > > > > > > > > static int intel_pstate_verify_policy(struct cpufreq_policy *policy) > > > > { > > > > + int max_freq; > > > > struct cpudata *cpu = all_cpu_data[policy->cpu]; > > > > > > > > update_turbo_state(); > > > > > > Well, update_turbo_state() should handle the case at hand already. > > > > > > That's what it's for actually: It checks if > > > MSR_IA32_MISC_ENABLE_TURBO_DISABLE is set and sets > > > global.turbo_disabled is that's the case. > > > > > > Why isn't that sufficient? > > > > > update_turbo_state() changes the flag of global.turbo_diabled but we > > need to also leverage it to adjust the policy.max accordingly. This is why > > we add intel_pstate_get_max_freq() to get the updated max freq in > > intel_pstate_verify_policy(). > > Yes, that's why intel_pstate_verify_policy() passes the return value > of intel_pstate_get_max_freq() as the second arg > cpufreq_verify_within_limits(), so really my question was about why > cpuinfo.max_freq needed to be updated (below). > Ok. > > > > + max_freq = intel_pstate_get_max_freq(cpu); > > > > + > > > > + if (acpi_ppc && policy->max == policy->cpuinfo.max_freq && > > > > + max_freq != policy->cpuinfo.max_freq) { > > > > + /* > > > > + * System was not running under any constraints, but the > > > > + * current max possible frequency is changed. So reset > > > > + * policy limits. > > > > + */ > > > > + policy->cpuinfo.max_freq = policy->max = max_freq; > > > > + } > > > > > > Why does policy->cpuinfo.max_freq need to be updated? > > > > > This is my understanding: > > There's a corner case that, if the system boots with battery, > > the max cpu frequency will not scale up if we plug the AC later. > > I see. The *initial* cpuinfo.max_freq may be too low. This part is > missing from your patch changelog. > > The driver is not expected to update cpuinfo.max_freq after init. > That may not actually break anything, even though it is racy in > principle, but if it is done, it needs to be done in the "passive" > mode too and that may be more problematic. > Do you mean updating it for "passive" mode might not be suitable? > Anyway, this is more fundamental than you seem to be thinking. > > > According to the log provided by Gabriele Mazzotta, if the system > > boot up with battery, then plug the AC after boot up, the max perf ratio > > and policy->cpuinfo.max will remain 17 rather than increasing to > > 30(when AC plugged thus turbo enabled): > > > > [ 52.158810] CPU 0: _PPC is 6 - frequency limited > > [ 52.158822] intel_pstate: set_policy cpuinfo.max 1700000 policy->max 1700000 > > [ 52.158825] intel_pstate: cpu:0 max_state 30 min_policy_perf:8 max_policy_perf:17 > > [ 52.158827] intel_pstate: cpu:0 global_min:8 global_max:30 > > [ 52.158829] intel_pstate: cpu:0 max_perf_ratio:17 min_perf_ratio:8 > > > > This is caused by: > > In current intel_pstate, there's only one chance for policy.cpuinfo.max to get updated > > which is during boot up in __intel_pstate_cpu_init(). If the turbo status changes, > > we might need to also update the policy->cpuinfo.max to tell user that the hardware > > status has changed. > > > > So we give it a chance to adjust the policy.cpuinfo.max and policy.max in > > cpufreq_driver->verify() according to turbo status, this is what this patch mainly > > aims to do. > > > > Besides, since on this platform there's only one _PPC notification for one CPU, it is > > necessary to broadcast the notification to all CPUs on this package. And this patch > > broadcast it to all online CPUs to make the change simpler. > > You're trying to make two substantial changes in one go, broadcasting > _PPC and updating cpuinfo.max_freq. Don't do that, they need to be > separate changes. Ok, I'll send version 2 out which is composed of two modifications to address different problems. > > Moreover, we may want to address the initial cpuinfo.max_freq issue in > a different way. Adjust the cpuinfo.max_freq in .verify() seems to be a proper place since this callback is invoked at a very early stage for both active and passive mode, and I did not see race condition for them. (Could not quite catch what we talked last time on this, if you have proposed another suggestion on how to update the cpuinfo.max_freq) :) Thanks, Ryan(Yu) > > Thanks, > Rafael