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;
From:   "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc:     Wanpeng Li <kernellwp@gmail.com>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, kvm <kvm@vger.kernel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@redhat.com>,
        Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@oracle.com>,
        KarimAllah <karahmed@amazon.de>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
        Ankur Arora <ankur.a.arora@oracle.com>,
        christopher.s.hall@intel.com, hubert.chrzaniuk@intel.com,
        len.brown@intel.com, thomas.lendacky@amd.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] sched/fair: Penalty the cfs task which executes mwait/hlt
Date:   Tue, 14 Jan 2020 23:46:18 +0100
Message-ID: <1868711.0LYWRWiNKV@kreacher>
In-Reply-To: <20200113122911.GE2827@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <1578448201-28218-1-git-send-email-wanpengli@tencent.com> <2579281.NS3xOKR7ft@kreacher> <20200113122911.GE2827@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Monday, January 13, 2020 1:29:11 PM CET Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 13, 2020 at 12:18:46PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Monday, January 13, 2020 11:43:14 AM CET Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> 
> > > Anyone, what will it take to get MPERF/TSC 'working' ?
> > 
> > The same thing that intel_pstate does.
> 
> But intel_pstate cheats, it has a FMS listing and possible 'interesting'
> chips are excluded. For instance, Core2 has APERF/MPERF, but
> intel_pstate does not support Core2.
> 
> Simlarly, intel_pstate does (obviously) not support AMD chips, even tho
> those have APERF/MPERF.
> 
> Although I suppose Core2 doesn't have VMX and is therefore less
> interesting, but then we'd need to gate the logic with something like:
> 
> 	static_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_APERFMPERF) &&
> 	(static_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_VMX) || static_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_SVM)
> 
> > Generally speaking, it shifts the mperf values by a number of positions
> > depending on the CPU model, but that is 1 except for KNL.
> > 
> > See get_target_pstate().
> 
> I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that's the same KNL hack as
> TurboStat has.
> 
> Is that really the only known case?

I'm not aware of any other at least as far as Intel chips go.