Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <cover.1624266901.git.viresh.kumar@linaro.org> <09a39f5c-b47b-a931-bf23-dc43229fb2dd@quicinc.com>
 <20210623041613.v2lo3nidpgw37abl@vireshk-i7> <2c540a58-4fef-5a3d-85b4-8862721b6c4f@quicinc.com>
 <20210624025414.4iszkovggk6lg6hj@vireshk-i7> <CAKfTPtAXMYYrG1w-iwSWXb428FkwFArEwXQgHnjShoCEMjdYcw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20210624104734.GA11487@arm.com> <CAKfTPtAYuon+V96WmuLz+ekWuqVcb5k17w8ZwNuCzm2KMvZw+w@mail.gmail.com>
 <20210624112331.GA22416@arm.com>
In-Reply-To: <20210624112331.GA22416@arm.com>
From:   Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>
Date:   Thu, 24 Jun 2021 13:59:20 +0200
Message-ID: <CAKfTPtCUazQu7GRUD=5-VHXBq-6rzaU5xnX_LgVr+i2YcKdvSg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V3 0/4] cpufreq: cppc: Add support for frequency invariance
To:     Ionela Voinescu <ionela.voinescu@arm.com>
Cc:     Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>,
        Qian Cai <quic_qiancai@quicinc.com>,
        Rafael Wysocki <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
        Ben Segall <bsegall@google.com>,
        Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@redhat.com>,
        Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>,
        Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
        "open list:THERMAL" <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>,
        ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, 24 Jun 2021 at 13:23, Ionela Voinescu <ionela.voinescu@arm.com> wrote:
>
> On Thursday 24 Jun 2021 at 13:15:04 (+0200), Vincent Guittot wrote:
> > On Thu, 24 Jun 2021 at 12:48, Ionela Voinescu <ionela.voinescu@arm.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi guys,
> > >
> > > On Thursday 24 Jun 2021 at 11:49:53 (+0200), Vincent Guittot wrote:
> > > > On Thu, 24 Jun 2021 at 04:54, Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On 23-06-21, 08:57, Qian Cai wrote:
> > > > > > Viresh, I am afraid I don't feel comfortable yet. I have a few new tests in
> > > > > > development, and will provide an update once ready.
> > > > >
> > > > > Oh sure, np.
> > > > >
> > > > > > Also, I noticed the delivered perf is even smaller than lowest_perf (100).
> > > > >
> > > > > > # cat /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu8/acpi_cppc/feedback_ctrs
> > > > > >  ref:103377547901 del:54540736873
> > > > > > # cat /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu8/acpi_cppc/feedback_ctrs
> > > > > >  ref:103379170101 del:54541599117
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 100 * (54541599117 - 54540736873) / (103379170101 - 103377547901) = 53
> > > >
> > > > I'm not sure that I understand your point. The formula above says that
> > > > cpu8 run @ 53% of nominal performance
> > > >
> > >
> > > I think this is based on a previous example Qian had where:
> > >
> > > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu0/acpi_cppc/highest_perf
> > > 300
> > > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu0/acpi_cppc/lowest_freq
> > > 1000
> > > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu0/acpi_cppc/lowest_perf
> > > 100
> > > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu0/acpi_cppc/reference_perf
> > > 100
> > >
> > > ..so the 100 is not from obtaining percentage, is the reference
> > > performance.
> > >
> > > The logic of the formula is to obtain the delivered performance when
> > > knowing the number of ticks for each counter, so:
> > >
> > > So if one gets (103379170101 - 103377547901) ticks for the counter at
> > > running at 1GHz(perf 100), what is the frequency of the core, if its
> > > counter ticked (54541599117 - 54540736873) times in the same interval
> > > of time?
> > >
> > > The answer is 530MHz(perf 53), which is lower than the lowest frequency
> > > at 1GHz(perf 100).
> >
> > But the nominal_perf is 280 and not 100 if i'm not wrong so the perf
> > value is 148 > lowest_perf in this case
> >
>
> Nominal performance has no meaning here. The reference counter ticks
> with the frequency equivalent to reference performance.
>
> Nominal performance is the maximum performance when !boost. Highest
> performance is the maximum performance available including boost
> frequencies. So nominal performance has no impact in these translations
> from counter values to delivered performance.

my bad, nominal_perf == reference_perf on the systems that I have locally

>
> Hope it helps,
> Ionela.
>
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > My understanding is that the delivered perf should fail into the range between
> > > > > > lowest_perf and highest_perf. Is that assumption correct? This happens on
> > > > > > 5.4-based kernel, so I am in process running your series on that system to see
> > > > > > if there is any differences. In any case, if it is a bug it is pre-existing,
> > > > > > but I'd like to understand a bit better in that front first.
> > > > >
> > > > > Vincent:
> > > > >
> > > > > Can that happen because of CPU idle ?
> > > > >
> > >
> > > Not if the counters are implemented properly. The kernel considers that
> > > both reference and delivered performance counters should stop or reset
> > > during idle. The kernel would not account for idle itself.
> > >
> > > If the reference performance counter does not stop during idle, while
> > > the core performance counter (delivered) does stop, the behavior above
> > > should be seen very often.
> > >
> > > Qian, do you see these small delivered performance values often or
> > > seldom?
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Ionela.
> > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > viresh