From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>
To: Doug Smythies <dsmythies@telus.net>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>,
Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@linux.intel.com>,
Len Brown <len.brown@intel.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Linux PM <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: intel_pstate: Override parameters if HWP forced by BIOS
Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2021 13:18:19 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAJZ5v0jMDbxXt_EWN-GUOGBDCpDGHUoqRoTtfR8-rUOQjDBUyw@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAAYoRsUun0_tXTEGi6m1L0A9ffRWZ8FbLs1kFEZ0d0QQi+ssQw@mail.gmail.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4830 bytes --]
On Fri, Sep 10, 2021 at 5:14 AM Doug Smythies <dsmythies@telus.net> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Sep 9, 2021 at 10:22 AM Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@kernel.org> wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 9, 2021 at 6:12 PM Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@kernel.org> wrote:
> > > On Thu, Sep 9, 2021 at 3:20 PM Doug Smythies <dsmythies@telus.net> wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Sep 9, 2021 at 4:18 AM Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@kernel.org> wrote:
> > > > > On Thu, Sep 9, 2021 at 8:52 AM Srinivas Pandruvada
> > > > > <srinivas.pandruvada@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Wed, 2021-09-08 at 20:48 -0700, Doug Smythies wrote:
> > > > > > > If HWP has been already been enabled by BIOS, it may be
> > > > > > > necessary to override some kernel command line parameters.
> > > > > > > Once it has been enabled it requires a reset to be disabled.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Doug Smythies <dsmythies@telus.net>
> > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > > drivers/cpufreq/intel_pstate.c | 22 ++++++++++++++++------
> > > > > > > 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/intel_pstate.c
> > > > > > > b/drivers/cpufreq/intel_pstate.c
> > > > > > > index bb4549959b11..073bae5d4498 100644
> > > > > > > --- a/drivers/cpufreq/intel_pstate.c
> > > > > > > +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/intel_pstate.c
> > > > > > > @@ -3267,7 +3267,7 @@ static int __init intel_pstate_init(void)
> > > > > > > */
> > > > > > > if ((!no_hwp && boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_HWP_EPP)) ||
> > > > > > > intel_pstate_hwp_is_enabled()) {
> > > > > > > - hwp_active++;
> > > > > > > + hwp_active = 1;
> > > > > > Why this change?
> > > > >
> > > > > I think hwp_active can be changed to bool and then it would make sense
> > > > > to update this line.
> > > > >
> > > > > > > hwp_mode_bdw = id->driver_data;
> > > > > > > intel_pstate.attr = hwp_cpufreq_attrs;
> > > > > > > intel_cpufreq.attr = hwp_cpufreq_attrs;
> > > > > > > @@ -3347,17 +3347,27 @@ device_initcall(intel_pstate_init);
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > static int __init intel_pstate_setup(char *str)
> > > > > > > {
> > > > > > > + /*
> > > > > > > + * If BIOS is forcing HWP, then parameter
> > > > > > > + * overrides might be needed. Only print
> > > > > > > + * the message once, and regardless of
> > > > > > > + * any overrides.
> > > > > > > + */
> > > > > > > + if(!hwp_active
> > > > > > This part of code is from early_param, Is it possible that
> > > > > > hwp_active is not 0?
> > > > >
> > > > > Well, it wouldn't matter even if it were nonzero. This check is just
> > > > > pointless anyway.
> > > > >
> > > > > > > && boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_HWP))
> > > > > > > + if(intel_pstate_hwp_is_enabled()){
> > > > >
> > > > > This should be
> > > > >
> > > > > if (boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_HWP) && intel_pstate_hwp_is_enabled()) {
> > > >
> > > > Disagree.
> > > > This routine gets executed once per intel_pstate related grub command
> > > > line entry. The purpose of the "if(!hwp_active" part is to prevent the
> > > > printing of the message to the logs multiple times.
> > >
> > > Ah OK. Fair enough.
> > >
> > > You can do all of the checks in one conditional, though. They will be
> > > processed left-to-right anyway.
> > >
> > > But then it would be good to avoid calling
> > > intel_pstate_hwp_is_enabled() multiple times if it returns false.
> > >
> > > And having said all that I'm not sure why you are trying to make
> > > no_hwp depend on !hwp_active? I will not be taken into account anyway
> > > if intel_pstate_hwp_is_enabled() returns 'true'?
> > >
> > > So if no_hwp is covered regardless, you may move the
> > > intel_pstate_hwp_is_enabled() inside the no_load conditional.
> > >
> > > Alternatively, and I would do that, intel_pstate_hwp_is_enabled()
> > > could be evaluated earlier in intel_pstate_init() and if it returned
> > > 'true', both no_load and no_hwp would be disregarded.
> >
> > Something like the attached, for the record.
>
> O.K. and Thanks.
> I was trying to avoid this line getting into the log:
>
> [ 0.000000] intel_pstate: HWP disabled
>
> only to overridden later by, now, these lines:
>
> [ 0.373742] intel_pstate: HWP enabled by BIOS
> [ 0.374177] intel_pstate: Intel P-state driver initializing
> [ 0.375097] intel_pstate: HWP enabled
>
> Let me see if I can go with your suggestion and get to
> what I had hoped to get in the logs.
It would be sufficient to put the "disabled" printk() after the
"no_hwp" if () statement in intel_pstate_init(). See attached.
BTW, I've changed the message to "HWP not enabled", because that's
what really happens to be precise.
[-- Attachment #2: intel_pstate-arguments.patch --]
[-- Type: text/x-patch, Size: 1836 bytes --]
---
drivers/cpufreq/intel_pstate.c | 22 ++++++++++++++--------
1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
Index: linux-pm/drivers/cpufreq/intel_pstate.c
===================================================================
--- linux-pm.orig/drivers/cpufreq/intel_pstate.c
+++ linux-pm/drivers/cpufreq/intel_pstate.c
@@ -3205,11 +3205,15 @@ static int __init intel_pstate_init(void
if (boot_cpu_data.x86_vendor != X86_VENDOR_INTEL)
return -ENODEV;
- if (no_load)
- return -ENODEV;
-
id = x86_match_cpu(hwp_support_ids);
if (id) {
+ bool hwp_forced = intel_pstate_hwp_is_enabled();
+
+ if (hwp_forced)
+ pr_info("HWP enabled by BIOS\n");
+ else if (no_load)
+ return -ENODEV;
+
copy_cpu_funcs(&core_funcs);
/*
* Avoid enabling HWP for processors without EPP support,
@@ -3219,8 +3223,7 @@ static int __init intel_pstate_init(void
* If HWP is enabled already, though, there is no choice but to
* deal with it.
*/
- if ((!no_hwp && boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_HWP_EPP)) ||
- intel_pstate_hwp_is_enabled()) {
+ if ((!no_hwp && boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_HWP_EPP)) || hwp_forced) {
hwp_active++;
hwp_mode_bdw = id->driver_data;
intel_pstate.attr = hwp_cpufreq_attrs;
@@ -3235,7 +3238,11 @@ static int __init intel_pstate_init(void
goto hwp_cpu_matched;
}
+ pr_info("HWP not enabled\n");
} else {
+ if (no_load)
+ return -ENODEV;
+
id = x86_match_cpu(intel_pstate_cpu_ids);
if (!id) {
pr_info("CPU model not supported\n");
@@ -3314,10 +3321,9 @@ static int __init intel_pstate_setup(cha
else if (!strcmp(str, "passive"))
default_driver = &intel_cpufreq;
- if (!strcmp(str, "no_hwp")) {
- pr_info("HWP disabled\n");
+ if (!strcmp(str, "no_hwp"))
no_hwp = 1;
- }
+
if (!strcmp(str, "force"))
force_load = 1;
if (!strcmp(str, "hwp_only"))
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-09-10 11:18 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-09-09 3:48 [PATCH] cpufreq: intel_pstate: Override parameters if HWP forced by BIOS Doug Smythies
2021-09-09 6:33 ` Srinivas Pandruvada
2021-09-09 11:18 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2021-09-09 13:20 ` Doug Smythies
2021-09-09 16:12 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2021-09-09 17:22 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2021-09-10 3:14 ` Doug Smythies
2021-09-10 11:18 ` Rafael J. Wysocki [this message]
2021-09-10 15:34 ` Doug Smythies
2021-09-10 15:45 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2021-09-09 13:30 ` Doug Smythies
2021-09-09 14:52 ` Srinivas Pandruvada
2021-09-10 4:11 ` Doug Smythies
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=CAJZ5v0jMDbxXt_EWN-GUOGBDCpDGHUoqRoTtfR8-rUOQjDBUyw@mail.gmail.com \
--to=rafael@kernel.org \
--cc=dsmythies@telus.net \
--cc=len.brown@intel.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=srinivas.pandruvada@linux.intel.com \
/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).