Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::3:4 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::3:4;
Received-SPF: Pass (protection.outlook.com: domain of nvidia.com designates
 216.228.117.160 as permitted sender) receiver=protection.outlook.com;
 client-ip=216.228.117.160; helo=mail.nvidia.com; pr=C
Message-ID: <2cfbc633-1e94-d741-2337-e1b0cf48b81b@nvidia.com>
Date:   Fri, 8 Dec 2023 21:04:32 +0530
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/102.11.0
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] cpufreq: Wire-up arch-flavored freq info into
 cpufreq_verify_current_freq
Content-Language: en-US
To:     Ionela Voinescu <ionela.voinescu@arm.com>
CC:     Beata Michalska <beata.michalska@arm.com>,
        <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>, <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>,
        <sudeep.holla@arm.covm>, <will@kernel.org>,
        <catalin.marinas@arm.com>, <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>,
        <rafael@kernel.org>, <yang@os.amperecomputing.com>,
        <linux-tegra@vger.kernel.org>, Sumit Gupta <sumitg@nvidia.com>
References: <20231127160838.1403404-1-beata.michalska@arm.com>
 <20231127160838.1403404-3-beata.michalska@arm.com> <ZWXy0h/fFfQh+Rhy@arm.com>
 <3e6077bb-907c-057f-0896-d0a5814a4229@nvidia.com> <ZW8D5TfSwuJfdYeD@arm.com>
 <c8b4d391-681e-f4a6-2839-e5951429f043@nvidia.com> <ZXGOvsE4mKOsdoLp@arm.com>
From:   Sumit Gupta <sumitg@nvidia.com>
In-Reply-To: <ZXGOvsE4mKOsdoLp@arm.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalArrivalTime: 08 Dec 2023 15:34:47.1092
 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 7fd5afc6-830c-489f-c03d-08dbf80335aa
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Id: 43083d15-7273-40c1-b7db-39efd9ccc17a
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalAttributedTenantConnectingIp: TenantId=43083d15-7273-40c1-b7db-39efd9ccc17a;Ip=[216.228.117.160];Helo=[mail.nvidia.com]
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthSource: MWH0EPF000989E8.namprd02.prod.outlook.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthAs: Anonymous
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-FromEntityHeader: HybridOnPrem
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: DS7PR12MB6312
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.0 required=5.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED,
	DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,
	MAILING_LIST_MULTI,NICE_REPLY_A,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,
	T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
	version=3.4.6
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on howler.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 (howler.vger.email [0.0.0.0]); Fri, 08 Dec 2023 07:35:01 -0800 (PST)


>>>>>> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
>>>>>> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
>>>>>> @@ -1756,7 +1756,8 @@ static unsigned int cpufreq_verify_current_freq(struct cpufreq_policy *policy, b
>>>>>>     {
>>>>>>          unsigned int new_freq;
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -     new_freq = cpufreq_driver->get(policy->cpu);
>>>>>> +     new_freq = arch_freq_get_on_cpu(policy->cpu);
>>>>>> +     new_freq = new_freq ?: cpufreq_driver->get(policy->cpu);
>>>>>
>>>>> Given that arch_freq_get_on_cpu() is an average frequency, it does not
>>>>> seem right to me to trigger the sync & update process of
>>>>> cpufreq_verify_current_freq() based on it.
>>>>>
>>>>> cpufreq_verify_current_freq() will at least modify the internal state of
>>>>> the policy and send PRE and POST notifications, if not do a full frequency
>>>>> update, based on this average frequency, which is likely different from
>>>>> the current frequency, even beyond the 1MHz threshold.
>>>>>
>>>>> While I believe it's okay to return this average frequency in
>>>>> cpuinfo_cur_freq, I don't think it should be used as an indication of
>>>>> an accurate current frequency, which is what
>>>>> cpufreq_verify_current_freq() expects.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sumit, can you give more details on the issue at [1] and why this change
>>>>> fixes it?
>>>>>
>>>>> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/6a5710f6-bfbb-5dfd-11cd-0cd02220cee7@nvidia.com/
>>>>>
>>>>> Thank you,
>>>>> Ionela.
>>>>>
>>>> cpufreq_verify_current_freq() also updates 'policy->cur' in POST
>>>> notification if the frequency from hardware has more delta (out of sync).
>>>>
>>>> As the value from 'cpufreq_driver->get()' is not reliable due to [1],
>>>> calling the 'get' hook can update the 'policy->cur' with a wrong value when
>>>> governor starts in cpufreq_start_governor().
>>>> And if the frequency is never changed after the governor starts during
>>>> boot e.g. when performance governor is set as default, then
>>>> 'scaling_cur_freq' always returns wrong value.
>>>>
>>>> Instead, the arch_freq_get_on_cpu() API updates 'policy->cur' with a more
>>>> stable freq value.
>>>>
>>>> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20230418113459.12860-7-sumitg@nvidia.com/
>>>
>>> Got it, many thanks!
>>>
>>> As the code is right now in v2, arch_freq_get_on_cpu() is called on
>>> show_scaling_cur_freq(), so the problem you describe would not show up.
>>> policy->cur would still be incorrect, but 'scaling_cur_freq' would
>>> return the value from arch_freq_get_on_cpu().
>>>
>>> Would it be enough if arch_freq_get_on_cpu() gets also called from
>>> show_cpuinfo_cur_freq() instead of cpufreq_verify_current_freq()?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Ionela.
>>>
>>
>> Yes.
>> I am not sure if making both the nodes 'scaling_cur_freq' and
>> 'cpuinfo_cur_freq' same is fine?
> 
> That would happen anyway if arch_freq_get_on_cpu() is called from
> cpufreq_verify_current_freq().
> 
Yes, that will happen in both the cases.

> In principle, according to [1], it would be correct to use it for
> 'cpuinfo_cur_freq' and not 'scaling_cur_freq'. But the call from
> show_scaling_cur_freq() is already there before these patches,
> introduced a long time ago for x86.
> 
> The topic was discussed at [2] and the agreement so far was that it
> would be best to keep the behaviour the same for both x86 and arm.
> 
Looking at the previous discussion in [2], seems to be fine.

Best Regards,
Sumit Gupta

> I don't like going against the user-guide, but these patches don't
> actually go against the user-guide. The old call to
> arch_freq_get_on_cpu() from show_scaling_cur_freq() goes against it.
> But I agree that's something necessary to keep, as legacy for x86.
> Additionally, you also mentioned that you'd prefer to have a more
> accurate frequency returned for 'scaling_cur_freq'.
> 
> [1] https://www.kernel.org/doc/Documentation/cpu-freq/user-guide.txt
> [2] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20230609043922.eyyqutbwlofqaddz@vireshk-i7/
> 
> Thanks,
> Ionela.
> 
>>
>> Best Regards,
>> Sumit Gupta