linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>
To: Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@inria.fr>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>,
	Doug Smythies <dsmythies@telus.net>,
	Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@linux.intel.com>,
	Len Brown <lenb@kernel.org>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
	Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>,
	Linux PM list <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: problem in changing from active to passive mode
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2021 21:48:21 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAJZ5v0j9fJi+Fa1404uH3V2XJUrVB5crEjcZ9tsnBtQWgCCu4w@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.22.394.2110282124201.9518@hadrien>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4278 bytes --]

On Thu, Oct 28, 2021 at 9:25 PM Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@inria.fr> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thu, 28 Oct 2021, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Oct 28, 2021 at 9:13 PM Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@inria.fr> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Thu, 28 Oct 2021, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Thu, Oct 28, 2021 at 7:57 PM Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@kernel.org> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, Oct 28, 2021 at 7:29 PM Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@kernel.org> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Thu, Oct 28, 2021 at 7:10 PM Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@inria.fr> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Now, for your graph 3, are you saying this pseudo
> > > > > > > > code of the process is repeatable?:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Power up the system, booting kernel 5.9
> > > > > > > > switch to passive/schedutil.
> > > > > > > > wait X minutes for system to settle
> > > > > > > > do benchmark, result ~13 seconds
> > > > > > > > re-boot to kernel 5.15-RC
> > > > > > > > switch to passive/schedutil.
> > > > > > > > wait X minutes for system to settle
> > > > > > > > do benchmark, result ~40 seconds
> > > > > > > > re-boot to kernel 5.9
> > > > > > > > switch to passive/schedutil.
> > > > > > > > wait X minutes for system to settle
> > > > > > > > do benchmark, result ~28 seconds
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > In the first boot of 5.9, the des (desired?) field of the HWP_REQUEST
> > > > > > > register is 0 and in the second boot (after booting 5.15 and entering
> > > > > > > passive mode) it is 10.  I don't know though if this is a bug or a
> > > > > > > feature...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It looks like a bug.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I think that the desired value is not cleared on driver exit which
> > > > > > should happen.  Let me see if I can do a quick patch for that.
> > > > >
> > > > > Please check the behavior with the attached patch applied.
> > > >
> > > > Well, actually, the previous one won't do anything, because the
> > > > desired perf field is already cleared in this function before writing
> > > > the MSR, so please try the one attached to this message instead.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Turbostat still shows 10:
> > >
> > > cpu0: MSR_HWP_CAPABILITIES: 0x070a1525 (high 37 guar 21 eff 10 low 7)
> > > cpu0: MSR_HWP_REQUEST: 0x000a2525 (min 37 max 37 des 10 epp 0x0 window 0x0 pkg 0x0)
> > > cpu0: MSR_HWP_REQUEST_PKG: 0x8000ff00 (min 0 max 255 des 0 epp 0x80 window 0x0)
> > > cpu0: MSR_HWP_STATUS: 0x00000004 (No-Guaranteed_Perf_Change, No-Excursion_Min)
> > > cpu1: MSR_PM_ENABLE: 0x00000001 (HWP)
> > > cpu1: MSR_HWP_CAPABILITIES: 0x070a1525 (high 37 guar 21 eff 10 low 7)
> > > cpu1: MSR_HWP_REQUEST: 0x000a2525 (min 37 max 37 des 10 epp 0x0 window 0x0 pkg 0x0)
> > > cpu1: MSR_HWP_REQUEST_PKG: 0x8000ff00 (min 0 max 255 des 0 epp 0x80 window 0x0)
> > > cpu1: MSR_HWP_STATUS: 0x00000004 (No-Guaranteed_Perf_Change, No-Excursion_Min)
> > > cpu2: MSR_PM_ENABLE: 0x00000001 (HWP)
> > > cpu2: MSR_HWP_CAPABILITIES: 0x070a1525 (high 37 guar 21 eff 10 low 7)
> > > cpu2: MSR_HWP_REQUEST: 0x000a2525 (min 37 max 37 des 10 epp 0x0 window 0x0 pkg 0x0)
> > > cpu2: MSR_HWP_REQUEST_PKG: 0x8000ff00 (min 0 max 255 des 0 epp 0x80 window 0x0)
> > > cpu2: MSR_HWP_STATUS: 0x00000004 (No-Guaranteed_Perf_Change, No-Excursion_Min)
> > > cpu3: MSR_PM_ENABLE: 0x00000001 (HWP)
> > > cpu3: MSR_HWP_CAPABILITIES: 0x070a1525 (high 37 guar 21 eff 10 low 7)
> > > cpu3: MSR_HWP_REQUEST: 0x000a2525 (min 37 max 37 des 10 epp 0x0 window 0x0 pkg 0x0)
> > > cpu3: MSR_HWP_REQUEST_PKG: 0x8000ff00 (min 0 max 255 des 0 epp 0x80 window 0x0)
> > > cpu3: MSR_HWP_STATUS: 0x00000004 (No-Guaranteed_Perf_Change, No-Excursion_Min)
> >
> > Hmmm.
> >
> > Is this also the case if you go from "passive" to "active" on 5.15-rc
> > w/ the patch applied?
>
> Sorry, I was wrong.  If I am in 5.15 and go from passive to active, the
> des field indeed returns to 0.  If I use kexec

Well, this means that the cpufreq driver cleanup is not carried out in
the kexec path and the old desired value remains in the register.

> to reboot from 5.15 passive into 5.9, then the des field remains 10.

It looks like desired perf needs to be cleared explicitly in the active mode.

Attached is a patch to do that, but please note that the 5.9 will need
to be patched too to address this issue.

[-- Attachment #2: intel_pstate-clear-desired-in-active.patch --]
[-- Type: text/x-patch, Size: 517 bytes --]

---
 drivers/cpufreq/intel_pstate.c |    2 ++
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)

Index: linux-pm/drivers/cpufreq/intel_pstate.c
===================================================================
--- linux-pm.orig/drivers/cpufreq/intel_pstate.c
+++ linux-pm/drivers/cpufreq/intel_pstate.c
@@ -946,6 +946,8 @@ static void intel_pstate_hwp_set(unsigne
 	value &= ~HWP_MAX_PERF(~0L);
 	value |= HWP_MAX_PERF(max);
 
+	value &= ~HWP_DESIRED_PERF(~0L);
+
 	if (cpu_data->epp_policy == cpu_data->policy)
 		goto skip_epp;
 

  reply	other threads:[~2021-10-28 19:48 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-10-24 13:02 problem in changing from active to passive mode Julia Lawall
2021-10-24 22:44 ` Doug Smythies
2021-10-25  5:17   ` Julia Lawall
2021-10-25 20:49   ` Julia Lawall
2021-10-26 15:13   ` Julia Lawall
2021-10-27 15:10     ` Doug Smythies
2021-10-27 15:16       ` Julia Lawall
2021-10-28 17:10       ` Julia Lawall
2021-10-28 17:29         ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2021-10-28 17:57           ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2021-10-28 18:16             ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2021-10-28 18:43               ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2021-10-28 19:13               ` Julia Lawall
2021-10-28 19:21                 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2021-10-28 19:25                   ` Julia Lawall
2021-10-28 19:48                     ` Rafael J. Wysocki [this message]
2021-10-28 20:18                       ` Julia Lawall
2021-10-29 15:39                         ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2021-10-29 20:29                           ` Julia Lawall

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=CAJZ5v0j9fJi+Fa1404uH3V2XJUrVB5crEjcZ9tsnBtQWgCCu4w@mail.gmail.com \
    --to=rafael@kernel.org \
    --cc=dsmythies@telus.net \
    --cc=julia.lawall@inria.fr \
    --cc=lenb@kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-pm@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=rjw@rjwysocki.net \
    --cc=srinivas.pandruvada@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=viresh.kumar@linaro.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).