From: Ionela Voinescu <ionela.voinescu@arm.com>
To: Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@arm.com>
Cc: catalin.marinas@arm.com, will@kernel.org, mark.rutland@arm.com,
maz@kernel.org, suzuki.poulose@arm.com, sudeep.holla@arm.com,
dietmar.eggemann@arm.com, peterz@infradead.org, mingo@redhat.com,
ggherdovich@suse.cz, vincent.guittot@linaro.org,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 6/6] arm64: use activity monitors for frequency invariance
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2020 17:36:13 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200128173613.GB16417@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <d541c4ae-8419-0204-f399-7f0f0a18eb38@arm.com>
Hi Lukasz,
On Friday 24 Jan 2020 at 15:17:48 (+0000), Lukasz Luba wrote:
[..]
> > > static void cpu_amu_enable(struct arm64_cpu_capabilities const *cap)
> > > {
> > > + u64 core_cnt, const_cnt;
> > > +
> > > if (has_cpuid_feature(cap, SCOPE_LOCAL_CPU)) {
> > > pr_info("detected CPU%d: Activity Monitors Unit (AMU)\n",
> > > smp_processor_id());
> > > - this_cpu_write(amu_feat, 1);
> > > + core_cnt = read_sysreg_s(SYS_AMEVCNTR0_CORE_EL0);
> > > + const_cnt = read_sysreg_s(SYS_AMEVCNTR0_CONST_EL0);
> > > +
> > > + this_cpu_write(arch_core_cycles_prev, core_cnt);
> > > + this_cpu_write(arch_const_cycles_prev, const_cnt);
> > > +
> > > + this_cpu_write(amu_scale_freq, 1);
> > > + } else {
> > > + this_cpu_write(amu_scale_freq, 2);
> > > }
> > > }
> >
> >
> > Yes, functionally this can be done here (it would need some extra checks
> > on the initial values of core_cnt and const_cnt), but what I was saying
> > in my previous comment is that I don't want to mix generic feature
> > detection, which should happen here, with counter validation for
> > frequency invariance. As you see, this would already bring here per-cpu
> > variables for counters and amu_scale_freq flag, and I only see this
> > getting more messy with the future use of more counters. I don't believe
> > this code belongs here.
> >
> > Looking a bit more over the code and checking against the new frequency
> > invariance code for x86, there is a case of either doing this CPU
> > validation in smp_prepare_cpus (separately for arm64 and x86) or calling
> > an arch_init_freq_invariance() maybe in sched_init_smp to be defined with
> > the proper frequency invariance counter initialisation code separately
> > for x86 and arm64. I'll have to look more over the details to make sure
> > this is feasible.
>
> I have found that we could simply draw on from Mark's solution to
> similar problem. In commit:
>
> commit df857416a13734ed9356f6e4f0152d55e4fb748a
> Author: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
> Date: Wed Jul 16 16:32:44 2014 +0100
>
> arm64: cpuinfo: record cpu system register values
>
> Several kernel subsystems need to know details about CPU system register
> values, sometimes for CPUs other than that they are executing on. Rather
> than hard-coding system register accesses and cross-calls for these
> cases, this patch adds logic to record various system register values at
> boot-time. This may be used for feature reporting, firmware bug
> detection, etc.
>
> Separate hooks are added for the boot and hotplug paths to enable
> one-time intialisation and cold/warm boot value mismatch detection in
> later patches.
>
> Signed-off-by: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
> Reviewed-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
> Reviewed-by: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
> Signed-off-by: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
>
>
> He added cpuinfo_store_cpu() call in secondary_start_kernel()
> [in arm64 smp.c]. Please check the file:
> arch/arm64/kernel/cpuinfo.c
>
> We can probably add our read-amu-regs-and-setup-invariance call
> just below his cpuinfo_store_cpu.
>
> Then the arm64 cpufeature.c would be clean, we will be called for
> each cpu, late_initcal() will finish setup with edge case policy
> check like in the init_amu_feature() code below.
>
Yes, this should work: calling a AMU per_cpu validation function in
setup_processor for the boot CPU and in secondary_start_kernel for
secondary and hotplugged CPUs.
I would still like to bring this closer to the scheduler
(sched_init_smp) as frequency invariance is a functionality needed by
the scheduler and its initialisation should be part of scheduler init
code. But this together with needed interfaces for other architectures
can be done in a separate patchset that is not so AMU/arm64 specific.
[..]
> >
> > Yes, with the design I mentioned above, this CPU policy validation could
> > move to a late_initcall and I could drop the workqueues and the extra
> > data structure. Thanks for this!
> >
> > Let me know what you think!
> >
>
> One think is still open, the file drivers/base/arch_topology.c and
> #ifdef in function arch_set_freq_scale().
>
> Generally, if there is such need, it's better to put such stuff into the
> header and make dual implementation not polluting generic code with:
> #if defined(CONFIG_ARM64_XZY)
> #endif
> #if defined(CONFIG_POWERPC_ABC)
> #endif
> #if defined(CONFIG_x86_QAZ)
> #endif
> ...
>
>
> In our case we would need i.e. linux/topology.h because it includes
> asm/topology.h, which might provide a needed symbol. At the end of
> linux/topology.h we can have:
>
> #ifndef arch_cpu_auto_scaling
> static __always_inline
> bool arch_cpu_auto_scaling(void) { return False; }
> #endif
>
> Then, when the symbol was missing and we got the default one,
> it should be easily optimized by the compiler.
>
> We could have a much cleaner function arch_set_freq_scale()
> in drivers/base/ and all architecture will deal with specific
> #ifdef CONFIG in their <asm/topology.h> implementations or
> use default.
>
> Example:
> arch_set_freq_scale()
> {
> unsigned long scale;
> int i;
>
> if (arch_cpu_auto_scaling(cpu))
> return;
>
> scale = (cur_freq << SCHED_CAPACITY_SHIFT) / max_freq;
> for_each_cpu(i, cpus)
> per_cpu(freq_scale, i) = scale;
> }
>
> Regards,
> Lukasz
>
Okay, it does look nice and clean. Let me give this a try in v3.
Thank you very much,
Ionela.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-01-28 17:36 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 40+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-12-18 18:26 [PATCH v2 0/6] arm64: ARMv8.4 Activity Monitors support Ionela Voinescu
2019-12-18 18:26 ` [PATCH v2 1/6] arm64: add support for the AMU extension v1 Ionela Voinescu
2020-01-23 17:04 ` Valentin Schneider
2020-01-23 18:32 ` Ionela Voinescu
2020-01-24 12:00 ` Valentin Schneider
2020-01-28 11:00 ` Ionela Voinescu
2020-01-28 16:34 ` Suzuki Kuruppassery Poulose
2020-01-29 16:42 ` Ionela Voinescu
2019-12-18 18:26 ` [PATCH v2 2/6] arm64: trap to EL1 accesses to AMU counters from EL0 Ionela Voinescu
2020-01-23 17:04 ` Valentin Schneider
2020-01-23 17:34 ` Ionela Voinescu
2019-12-18 18:26 ` [PATCH v2 3/6] arm64/kvm: disable access to AMU registers from kvm guests Ionela Voinescu
2020-01-27 15:33 ` Valentin Schneider
2020-01-28 15:48 ` Ionela Voinescu
2020-01-28 17:26 ` Suzuki Kuruppassery Poulose
2020-01-28 17:37 ` Valentin Schneider
2020-01-28 17:52 ` Ionela Voinescu
2019-12-18 18:26 ` [PATCH v2 4/6] Documentation: arm64: document support for the AMU extension Ionela Voinescu
2020-01-27 16:47 ` Valentin Schneider
2020-01-28 16:53 ` Ionela Voinescu
2020-01-28 18:36 ` Valentin Schneider
2020-01-30 15:04 ` Suzuki Kuruppassery Poulose
2020-01-30 16:45 ` Ionela Voinescu
2020-01-30 18:26 ` Suzuki K Poulose
2020-01-31 9:54 ` Ionela Voinescu
2019-12-18 18:26 ` [PATCH v2 5/6] TEMP: sched: add interface for counter-based frequency invariance Ionela Voinescu
2020-01-29 19:37 ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-01-30 15:33 ` Ionela Voinescu
2019-12-18 18:26 ` [PATCH v2 6/6] arm64: use activity monitors for " Ionela Voinescu
2020-01-23 11:49 ` Lukasz Luba
2020-01-23 17:07 ` Ionela Voinescu
2020-01-24 1:19 ` Lukasz Luba
2020-01-24 13:12 ` Ionela Voinescu
2020-01-24 15:17 ` Lukasz Luba
2020-01-28 17:36 ` Ionela Voinescu [this message]
2020-01-29 17:13 ` Valentin Schneider
2020-01-29 17:52 ` Ionela Voinescu
2020-01-29 23:39 ` Valentin Schneider
2020-01-30 15:49 ` Ionela Voinescu
2020-01-30 16:11 ` Valentin Schneider
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20200128173613.GB16417@arm.com \
--to=ionela.voinescu@arm.com \
--cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
--cc=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \
--cc=ggherdovich@suse.cz \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-doc@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lukasz.luba@arm.com \
--cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
--cc=maz@kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=sudeep.holla@arm.com \
--cc=suzuki.poulose@arm.com \
--cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.org \
--cc=will@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).