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;
Received-SPF: Pass (protection.outlook.com: domain of amd.com designates
 165.204.84.17 as permitted sender) receiver=protection.outlook.com;
 client-ip=165.204.84.17; helo=SATLEXMB04.amd.com;
Date:   Thu, 16 Sep 2021 18:09:47 +0800
From:   Huang Rui <ray.huang@amd.com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
CC:     "Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>,
        Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>,
        Shuah Khan <skhan@linuxfoundation.org>,
        "Borislav Petkov" <bp@suse.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
        "linux-pm@vger.kernel.org" <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>,
        "Sharma, Deepak" <Deepak.Sharma@amd.com>,
        "Deucher, Alexander" <Alexander.Deucher@amd.com>,
        "Limonciello, Mario" <Mario.Limonciello@amd.com>,
        "Fontenot, Nathan" <Nathan.Fontenot@amd.com>,
        "Su, Jinzhou (Joe)" <Jinzhou.Su@amd.com>,
        "Du, Xiaojian" <Xiaojian.Du@amd.com>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "x86@kernel.org" <x86@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 04/19] cpufreq: amd: introduce a new amd pstate driver to
 support future processors
Message-ID: <20210916100947.GE3755511@hr-amd>
References: <20210908150001.3702552-1-ray.huang@amd.com>
 <20210908150001.3702552-5-ray.huang@amd.com>
 <YToh1Vhei2PyhlW+@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20210913081134.GA3731830@hr-amd>
 <YT8SOMBDpB0HWm0d@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20210913105458.GC3731830@hr-amd>
 <YT88cJCetaGHUItH@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <YT88cJCetaGHUItH@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalArrivalTime: 16 Sep 2021 10:09:51.7409
 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 2abb70e1-3acf-4b5a-6ae6-08d978fa1fa7
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Id: 3dd8961f-e488-4e60-8e11-a82d994e183d
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalAttributedTenantConnectingIp: TenantId=3dd8961f-e488-4e60-8e11-a82d994e183d;Ip=[165.204.84.17];Helo=[SATLEXMB04.amd.com]
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthSource: BN8NAM11FT029.eop-nam11.prod.protection.outlook.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthAs: Anonymous
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-FromEntityHeader: HybridOnPrem
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: CY4PR1201MB0120
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Mon, Sep 13, 2021 at 07:56:32PM +0800, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 13, 2021 at 06:54:58PM +0800, Huang Rui wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 13, 2021 at 04:56:24PM +0800, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> 
> > > > 1) Full MSR Support
> > > > If current hardware has the full MSR support, we register "pstate_funcs"
> > > > callback functions to implement the MSR operations to control the clocks.
> > > 
> > > What's the WRMSR cost for those? I've not really kept track of the MSR
> > > costs on AMD platforms, but on Intel it has (luckily) been coming down
> > > quite a bit.
> > 
> > Good to know this, I didn't have a chance to give a check. May I know how
> > did you test this latency? But MSR is new hardware design for this
> > solution, as designer mentioned, the WRMSR is low-latency register model is
> > faster than ACPI AML code interpreter.
> > 
> > > 
> > > > 2) Shared Memory Support
> > > > If current hardware doesn't have the full MSR support, that means it only
> > > > provides share memory support. We will leverage APIs in cppc_acpi libs with
> > > > "cppc_funcs" to implement the target function for the frequency control.
> > > 
> > > Right, the mailbox thing. How is the performance of this vs MSR accesses?
> > 
> > I will give a check. If you have a existing test method that can be used, I
> > can check it quickly.
> 
> Oh, I was mostly wondering if using the mailbox as MMIO would be faster
> than an MSR, but you've already answered that above. Also:
> 
> > > > 1. As mentioned above, amd-pstate driver can implement
> > > > fast_switch/adjust_perf function with full MSR operations that have better
> > > > performance for schedutil and other governors.
> > > 
> > > Why couldn't the existing cppc-cpufreq grow this?
> > 
> > Because fast_switch can adjust the frequency directly in the interrupt
> > context, if we use the acpi cppc handling with shared memory solution, it
> > will have a deadlock. So fast switch needs the control with registers
> > directly like acpi-cpufreq and intel-pstate.
> 
> Aah, I see, you're only doing fast_switch support when you have MSRs.
> That was totally non-obvious.. :/

Yes, I should have written a comment to there. :-)
Will update this in V2.

> 
> But then amd_pstate_adjust_perf() could just direct call the pstate
> methods and we don't need that indirection *at*all*, right?

Hmm, yes, if we use amd_pstate_adjust_perf here, we won't need to call
amd_pstate_fast_switch. I saw intel_pstate had adjust_perf and fast_switch
at the same time, would you mind to let me know how to distinguish these
two use scenario on intel processors?

Thanks,
Ray