Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::3:2 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::3:2;
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; pr=C
From:   Wyes Karny <wyes.karny@amd.com>
To:     Meng Li <li.meng@amd.com>
CC:     Wyes Karny <wyes.karny@amd.com>,
        "Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>,
        Huang Rui <ray.huang@amd.com>, <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>,
        <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, <x86@kernel.org>,
        <linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org>,
        Shuah Khan <skhan@linuxfoundation.org>,
        <linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org>,
        Nathan Fontenot <nathan.fontenot@amd.com>,
        Deepak Sharma <deepak.sharma@amd.com>,
        Alex Deucher <alexander.deucher@amd.com>,
        Mario Limonciello <mario.limonciello@amd.com>,
        Shimmer Huang <shimmer.huang@amd.com>,
        Perry Yuan <Perry.Yuan@amd.com>,
        Xiaojian Du <Xiaojian.Du@amd.com>,
        Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V8 5/7] cpufreq: amd-pstate: Update amd-pstate preferred core ranking dynamically
Date:   Mon, 9 Oct 2023 11:49:04 +0530
Message-ID: <20231009061621.vrpzz5aaqiv56grh@BLR-5CG13462PL.amd.com>
In-Reply-To: <20231009024932.2563622-6-li.meng@amd.com>
References: <20231009024932.2563622-1-li.meng@amd.com> <20231009024932.2563622-6-li.meng@amd.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalArrivalTime: 09 Oct 2023 06:20:16.0518
 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 2846d1e1-87b6-45ab-d1fe-08dbc88fcdd2
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: CO1PEPF000044F1.namprd05.prod.outlook.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthAs: Anonymous
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-FromEntityHeader: HybridOnPrem
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: SJ1PR12MB6316
X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.7 required=5.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED,
	DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,
	MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_SBL_CSS,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on agentk.vger.email
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
X-Greylist: Sender passed SPF test, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.6.4 (agentk.vger.email [0.0.0.0]); Sun, 08 Oct 2023 23:20:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Spam-Level: **

Hi Meng Li,

On 09 Oct 10:49, Meng Li wrote:
> Preferred core rankings can be changed dynamically by the
> platform based on the workload and platform conditions and
> accounting for thermals and aging.
> When this occurs, cpu priority need to be set.
> 
> Reviewed-by: Mario Limonciello <mario.limonciello@amd.com>
> Reviewed-by: Wyes Karny <wyes.karny@amd.com>
> Reviewed-by: Huang Rui <ray.huang@amd.com>
> Signed-off-by: Meng Li <li.meng@amd.com>
> ---
>  drivers/cpufreq/amd-pstate.c | 34 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
>  include/linux/amd-pstate.h   |  6 ++++++
>  2 files changed, 38 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/amd-pstate.c b/drivers/cpufreq/amd-pstate.c
> index 6ac8939fce5a..d3369247c6c9 100644
> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/amd-pstate.c
> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/amd-pstate.c
> @@ -313,6 +313,7 @@ static int pstate_init_perf(struct amd_cpudata *cpudata)
>  	WRITE_ONCE(cpudata->nominal_perf, AMD_CPPC_NOMINAL_PERF(cap1));
>  	WRITE_ONCE(cpudata->lowest_nonlinear_perf, AMD_CPPC_LOWNONLIN_PERF(cap1));
>  	WRITE_ONCE(cpudata->lowest_perf, AMD_CPPC_LOWEST_PERF(cap1));
> +	WRITE_ONCE(cpudata->prefcore_ranking, AMD_CPPC_HIGHEST_PERF(cap1));
>  
>  	return 0;
>  }
> @@ -334,6 +335,7 @@ static int cppc_init_perf(struct amd_cpudata *cpudata)
>  	WRITE_ONCE(cpudata->lowest_nonlinear_perf,
>  		   cppc_perf.lowest_nonlinear_perf);
>  	WRITE_ONCE(cpudata->lowest_perf, cppc_perf.lowest_perf);
> +	WRITE_ONCE(cpudata->prefcore_ranking, cppc_perf.highest_perf);
>  
>  	if (cppc_state == AMD_PSTATE_ACTIVE)
>  		return 0;
> @@ -540,7 +542,7 @@ static void amd_pstate_adjust_perf(unsigned int cpu,
>  	if (target_perf < capacity)
>  		des_perf = DIV_ROUND_UP(cap_perf * target_perf, capacity);
>  
> -	min_perf = READ_ONCE(cpudata->highest_perf);
> +	min_perf = READ_ONCE(cpudata->lowest_perf);

This seems to be a fix. So, this could be a separate patch.

>  	if (_min_perf < capacity)
>  		min_perf = DIV_ROUND_UP(cap_perf * _min_perf, capacity);
>  
> @@ -760,6 +762,32 @@ static void amd_pstate_init_prefcore(struct amd_cpudata *cpudata)
>  	}
>  }
>  
> +static void amd_pstate_update_highest_perf(unsigned int cpu)
> +{
> +	struct cpufreq_policy *policy;
> +	struct amd_cpudata *cpudata;
> +	u32 prev_high = 0, cur_high = 0;
> +	int ret;
> +
> +	if ((!amd_pstate_prefcore) || (!cpudata->hw_prefcore))
> +		return;
> +
> +	ret = amd_pstate_get_highest_perf(cpu, &cur_high);
> +	if (ret)
> +		return;
> +
> +	policy = cpufreq_cpu_get(cpu);
> +	cpudata = policy->driver_data;
> +	prev_high = READ_ONCE(cpudata->prefcore_ranking);
> +
> +	if (prev_high != cur_high) {
> +		WRITE_ONCE(cpudata->prefcore_ranking, cur_high);
> +		sched_set_itmt_core_prio(cur_high, cpu);
> +	}
> +
> +	cpufreq_cpu_put(policy);
> +}
> +
>  static int amd_pstate_cpu_init(struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
>  {
>  	int min_freq, max_freq, nominal_freq, lowest_nonlinear_freq, ret;
> @@ -926,7 +954,7 @@ static ssize_t show_amd_pstate_highest_perf(struct cpufreq_policy *policy,
>  	u32 perf;
>  	struct amd_cpudata *cpudata = policy->driver_data;
>  
> -	perf = READ_ONCE(cpudata->highest_perf);
> +	perf = READ_ONCE(cpudata->prefcore_ranking);

I think this should show cpudata->highest_perf.

Thanks,
Wyes
>  
>  	return sysfs_emit(buf, "%u\n", perf);
>  }
> @@ -1502,6 +1530,7 @@ static struct cpufreq_driver amd_pstate_driver = {
>  	.suspend	= amd_pstate_cpu_suspend,
>  	.resume		= amd_pstate_cpu_resume,
>  	.set_boost	= amd_pstate_set_boost,
> +	.update_highest_perf	= amd_pstate_update_highest_perf,
>  	.name		= "amd-pstate",
>  	.attr		= amd_pstate_attr,
>  };
> @@ -1516,6 +1545,7 @@ static struct cpufreq_driver amd_pstate_epp_driver = {
>  	.online		= amd_pstate_epp_cpu_online,
>  	.suspend	= amd_pstate_epp_suspend,
>  	.resume		= amd_pstate_epp_resume,
> +	.update_highest_perf	= amd_pstate_update_highest_perf,
>  	.name		= "amd-pstate-epp",
>  	.attr		= amd_pstate_epp_attr,
>  };
> diff --git a/include/linux/amd-pstate.h b/include/linux/amd-pstate.h
> index 87e140e9e6db..426822612373 100644
> --- a/include/linux/amd-pstate.h
> +++ b/include/linux/amd-pstate.h
> @@ -39,11 +39,16 @@ struct amd_aperf_mperf {
>   * @cppc_req_cached: cached performance request hints
>   * @highest_perf: the maximum performance an individual processor may reach,
>   *		  assuming ideal conditions
> + *		  For platforms that do not support the preferred core feature, the
> + *		  highest_pef may be configured with 166 or 255, to avoid max frequency
> + *		  calculated wrongly. we take the fixed value as the highest_perf.
>   * @nominal_perf: the maximum sustained performance level of the processor,
>   *		  assuming ideal operating conditions
>   * @lowest_nonlinear_perf: the lowest performance level at which nonlinear power
>   *			   savings are achieved
>   * @lowest_perf: the absolute lowest performance level of the processor
> + * @prefcore_ranking: the preferred core ranking, the higher value indicates a higher
> + * 		  priority.
>   * @max_freq: the frequency that mapped to highest_perf
>   * @min_freq: the frequency that mapped to lowest_perf
>   * @nominal_freq: the frequency that mapped to nominal_perf
> @@ -73,6 +78,7 @@ struct amd_cpudata {
>  	u32	nominal_perf;
>  	u32	lowest_nonlinear_perf;
>  	u32	lowest_perf;
> +	u32     prefcore_ranking;
>  
>  	u32	max_freq;
>  	u32	min_freq;
> -- 
> 2.34.1
>