From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.0 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,INCLUDES_CR_TRAILER, INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6221DC433ED for ; Fri, 23 Apr 2021 15:20:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 336F3613B0 for ; Fri, 23 Apr 2021 15:20:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S231723AbhDWPUk convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Fri, 23 Apr 2021 11:20:40 -0400 Received: from mail-oi1-f170.google.com ([209.85.167.170]:41905 "EHLO mail-oi1-f170.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229995AbhDWPUe (ORCPT ); Fri, 23 Apr 2021 11:20:34 -0400 Received: by mail-oi1-f170.google.com with SMTP id r186so21713683oif.8; Fri, 23 Apr 2021 08:19:58 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=PXVE4hrN8Ra4BE5pdNeYwDJC3vSSB5hMKHCcSU9/f4Q=; b=SUjt4lZDxzJN/DWjwv8ZqTuFnHwVB9b/pF/ANX1yVgU8u67OONmFsr0VJHlKvdAgGf /nc+eiN1o+O0D9WsLDA7EjQ3uxGfEwnK3aoIZO6c7adMcHxNxMX4EUwNjd61V6lB0ORN o4PAjt3rw2deQke78hAMbhoTRHQoyc2KUiMgHnTUDG6LguQPqFCv8XrJuvuefKXQZt1K JtzRc4YXSs1yEZfHL4TFEMd+MLaO2Qe3wlP6LS3DJQVJjpr97WOXZOAl2vrgv9XQR5lP sw0yt5gZhE+eUGwFdTcARYIQnVJV0YzjyNoGKWDP9FJcLlT9KFzrFJE+hN8TfTqAWNWY 94lg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5318Lmfoq9OxbhjgnnhpCo7t8sqKUCSzRWv70JWz/ZNErRI41GO4 962/t/bNXJ9/lYILUN5vp5haknOJjX6n81uWcI4= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJz7Yen33/DFEFFZRPowMOP+9GbKueYCf7KG1NmlDzHz1MwU1H44aW0EVNazUbfJQyjN3rEnPpyHp7WGsc3ahOU= X-Received: by 2002:aca:bc89:: with SMTP id m131mr3223966oif.71.1619191197698; Fri, 23 Apr 2021 08:19:57 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20210421023807.1540290-1-ray.huang@amd.com> In-Reply-To: <20210421023807.1540290-1-ray.huang@amd.com> From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2021 17:19:46 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] x86, sched: Fix the AMD CPPC maximum perf on some specific generations To: Huang Rui Cc: Linux PM , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Alex Deucher , Jason Bagavatsingham , "Pierre-Loup A . Griffais" , Nathan Fontenot , "Rafael J . Wysocki" , Borislav Petkov , "the arch/x86 maintainers" , Stable Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Apr 21, 2021 at 4:38 AM Huang Rui wrote: > > Some AMD Ryzen generations has different calculation method on maximum > perf. 255 is not for all asics, some specific generations should use 166 > as the maximum perf. Otherwise, it will report incorrect frequency value > like below: > > ~ → lscpu | grep MHz > CPU MHz: 3400.000 > CPU max MHz: 7228.3198 > CPU min MHz: 2200.0000 > > Fixes: 41ea667227ba ("x86, sched: Calculate frequency invariance for AMD systems") > Fixes: 3c55e94c0ade ("cpufreq: ACPI: Extend frequency tables to cover boost frequencies") > > Reported-by: Jason Bagavatsingham > Tested-by: Jason Bagavatsingham > Bugzilla: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=211791 > Signed-off-by: Huang Rui > Cc: Alex Deucher > Cc: Nathan Fontenot > Cc: Rafael J. Wysocki > Cc: Borislav Petkov > Cc: x86@kernel.org > Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org > --- > > Changes from V1 -> V2: > - Enhance the commit message. > - Move amd_get_highest_perf() into amd.c. > - Refine the implementation of switch-case. > - Cc stable mail list. > > --- > arch/x86/include/asm/processor.h | 2 ++ > arch/x86/kernel/cpu/amd.c | 22 ++++++++++++++++++++++ > arch/x86/kernel/smpboot.c | 2 +- > drivers/cpufreq/acpi-cpufreq.c | 19 +++++++++++++++++++ > 4 files changed, 44 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/processor.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/processor.h > index f1b9ed5efaa9..908bcaea1361 100644 > --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/processor.h > +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/processor.h > @@ -804,8 +804,10 @@ DECLARE_PER_CPU(u64, msr_misc_features_shadow); > > #ifdef CONFIG_CPU_SUP_AMD > extern u32 amd_get_nodes_per_socket(void); > +extern u32 amd_get_highest_perf(void); > #else > static inline u32 amd_get_nodes_per_socket(void) { return 0; } > +static inline u32 amd_get_highest_perf(void) { return 0; } > #endif > > static inline uint32_t hypervisor_cpuid_base(const char *sig, uint32_t leaves) > diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/amd.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/amd.c > index 347a956f71ca..aadb691d9357 100644 > --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/amd.c > +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/amd.c > @@ -1170,3 +1170,25 @@ void set_dr_addr_mask(unsigned long mask, int dr) > break; > } > } > + > +u32 amd_get_highest_perf(void) > +{ > + struct cpuinfo_x86 *c = &boot_cpu_data; > + u32 cppc_max_perf = 225; The extra local variable is redundant. > + > + switch (c->x86) { > + case 0x17: > + if ((c->x86_model >= 0x30 && c->x86_model < 0x40) || > + (c->x86_model >= 0x70 && c->x86_model < 0x80)) > + cppc_max_perf = 166; > + break; Also it would be cleaner to write this as if (c->x86 == 0x17 && ((c->x86_model >= 0x30 && c->x86_model < 0x40) || (c->x86_model >= 0x70 && c->x86_model < 0x80)) return 166; And analogously below. > + case 0x19: > + if ((c->x86_model >= 0x20 && c->x86_model < 0x30) || > + (c->x86_model >= 0x40 && c->x86_model < 0x70)) > + cppc_max_perf = 166; > + break; > + } > + > + return cppc_max_perf; And here return 225; > +} > +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(amd_get_highest_perf); > diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/smpboot.c b/arch/x86/kernel/smpboot.c > index 02813a7f3a7c..7bec57d04a87 100644 > --- a/arch/x86/kernel/smpboot.c > +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/smpboot.c > @@ -2046,7 +2046,7 @@ static bool amd_set_max_freq_ratio(void) > return false; > } > > - highest_perf = perf_caps.highest_perf; > + highest_perf = amd_get_highest_perf(); > nominal_perf = perf_caps.nominal_perf; > > if (!highest_perf || !nominal_perf) { > diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/acpi-cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/acpi-cpufreq.c > index d1bbc16fba4b..3f0a19dd658c 100644 > --- a/drivers/cpufreq/acpi-cpufreq.c > +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/acpi-cpufreq.c > @@ -630,6 +630,22 @@ static int acpi_cpufreq_blacklist(struct cpuinfo_x86 *c) > #endif > > #ifdef CONFIG_ACPI_CPPC_LIB > + > +static u64 get_amd_max_boost_ratio(unsigned int cpu, u64 nominal_perf) > +{ > + u64 boost_ratio, cppc_max_perf; > + > + if (!nominal_perf) > + return 0; > + > + cppc_max_perf = amd_get_highest_perf(); > + > + boost_ratio = div_u64(cppc_max_perf << SCHED_CAPACITY_SHIFT, > + nominal_perf); > + > + return boost_ratio; > +} The function above is not necessary if I'm not mistaken. > + > static u64 get_max_boost_ratio(unsigned int cpu) > { > struct cppc_perf_caps perf_caps; > @@ -646,6 +662,9 @@ static u64 get_max_boost_ratio(unsigned int cpu) > return 0; > } > > + if (boot_cpu_data.x86_vendor == X86_VENDOR_AMD) > + return get_amd_max_boost_ratio(cpu, perf_caps.nominal_perf); > + > highest_perf = perf_caps.highest_perf; The above can be written as if (boot_cpu_data.x86_vendor == X86_VENDOR_AMD) highest_perf = amd_get_highest_perf(); else highest_perf = perf_caps.highest_perf; > nominal_perf = perf_caps.nominal_perf; > > --